This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-422 
entitled 'US Attorneys: Performance-Based Initiatives are Evolving' 
which was released on June 18, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

May 2004:

U.S. ATTORNEYS:

Performance-Based Initiatives Are Evolving:

GAO-04-422:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-422, a report to congressional requesters

Why GAO Did This Study:

Within the Department of Justice (DOJ), the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices 
represent the United States in criminal and civil matters across the 
nation. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 
requires federal agencies, including DOJ, to set goals and objectives, 
measure performance, and report their accomplishments in order to move 
toward a performance-based environment. Integral to achieving these 
goals and objectives is strategic human capital management--the 
marshalling, managing, and maintaining the human capital needed to 
maximize government performance and achieve accountability. 

This report describes (1) how DOJ’s strategic goals and objectives 
apply to U.S. Attorneys, (2) DOJ’s plans and efforts to develop 
performance measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys, (3) the processes 
DOJ uses for monitoring the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and 
(4) DOJ efforts to move toward strategic human capital management for 
U.S. Attorneys Offices.

DOJ reviewed a draft of this report and had no comments.

What GAO Found:

DOJ has established departmentwide strategic goals and objectives 
applicable to its components, including U.S. Attorneys. Released in 
February 2004, DOJ’s fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission 
showed the two strategic goals and seven strategic objectives 
applicable to U.S. Attorneys.
 
DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2005 Strategic Goals and Objectives for U.S. 
Attorneys: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

DOJ has developed performance measures for U.S. Attorneys’ activities, 
and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) is 
exploring ways to measure performance in individual U.S. Attorneys 
Offices. Performance measures covering U.S. Attorneys continue to 
evolve. DOJ’s fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission included 
an outcome measure—percentage of cases favorably resolved—that is 
intended to show how U.S. Attorneys contribute to DOJ’s overall 
mission. According to DOJ budget officials, these measures will be 
revised as DOJ gains more experience with performance-based budgeting. 
EOUSA is also developing performance initiatives, for example, 
implementing a DOJ initiative to curb gun violence, which includes 
developing related performance measures.

DOJ is undertaking initiatives to provide better tools for monitoring 
the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices. EOUSA has redesigned its 
internal evaluation program and begun implementing a new process for 
collecting and analyzing information to assess each U.S. Attorneys 
Office’s progress toward addressing DOJ’s priorities and meeting 
performance expectations. According to DOJ officials, these tools will 
continue to evolve.

DOJ and EOUSA have taken steps to integrate performance-based strategic 
human capital management into day-to-day operations, including those 
of U.S. Attorneys Offices. Among other things, EOUSA is exploring how 
to integrate DOJ strategic goals and objectives with individual 
performance expectations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-04-422

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Paul L. Jones, 
202-512-8777, Jonesp@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Background:

Results:

Concluding Observations:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Appendix II: Information on the History, Operations, and Structure of 
U.S Attorneys Offices:

Appendix III: Governmentwide Management and Performance Initiatives 
Affecting DOJ and Its Components:

The Government Performance and Results Act:

The Performance and Budget Initiative:

Strategic Human Capital Management:

Appendix IV: DOJ's Departmentwide Strategic Goals and Objectives 
Applicable to U.S. Attorneys:

Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving:

Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S. 
Attorneys Offices Is Evolving:

Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to Move Toward 
Strategic Human Capital Management:

Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO's Survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys about Various Management Issues:

Performance Goals and Measures:

Monitoring Cases and Matters:

Performance Evaluation:

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Staffing:

Administrative Support:

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contact:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Related GAO Products on Strategic Human Capital Management:

Tables:

Table 1: DOJ Strategic Goals and Strategic Objectives/Annual 
Performance Goals Applicable to U.S. Attorneys for Fiscal Year 2004, 
and Associated Actual and Requested Resources for Fiscal Years 2002, 
2003, and 2004:

Table 2: DOJ's Strategic Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2005 That 
Apply to U.S. Attorneys, and Associated Actual, Appropriated, and 
Requested Budgetary Resources for Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005:

Table 3: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys' Activities in DOJ's 
Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan:

Table 4: Excerpt of U.S. Attorneys Congressional Budget Submission for 
Program Activity: Violent Crime, Drug Trafficking, and White-Collar 
Crime Showing Relationship between U.S. Attorney Defendant-Related 
Activities and Projected and Requested Budgetary Increases:

Table 5: DOJ's Human Capital Strategic Goals and Objectives:

Figures:

Figure 1: DOJ's Fiscal Year 2005 Strategic Goals and Objectives for 
U.S. Attorneys:

Figure 2: 94 U.S. Attorneys Districts:

Figure 3: Relationship between Strategic, Outcome, and Output Goals and 
Resources under a Fully Integrated Goal Structure:

Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S 
Attorneys--Criminal Decision Unit:

Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S 
Attorneys--Civil Decision Unit:

Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S 
Attorneys--Legal Education Decision Unit:

Figure 7: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S 
Attorneys--Criminal Decision Unit:

Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S 
Attorneys--Civil Decision Unit:

Figure 9: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S 
Attorneys--Legal Education Decision Unit:

Abbreviations:

ATAC: Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council:

ATTF: Anti-terrorism Task Force:

ATF: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives:

DEA: Drug Enforcement Agency:

DHS: Department of Homeland Security:

DOD: Department of Defense:

DOJ: Department of Justice:

DSES: District Self Evaluation Survey:

EARS: Evaluation and Review Staff evaluations:

EOUSA: Executive Office for United States Attorneys:

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:

FTE: Full-time equivalent:

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:

JMD: Justice Management Division:

JTTF: Joint Terrorism Task Force:

MPS: Management and Planning Staff:

OIG: Office of Inspector General:

OMB: Office of Management and Budget:

OPM: Office of Personnel Management:

PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool:

PMA: President's Management Agenda:

PSN: Project Safe Neighborhoods:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

May 28, 2004:

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Chris Cannon: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Melvin L. Watt: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives:

With the advent of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 
1993, federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), were 
to move toward performance-based management. GPRA requires agencies to, 
among other things, set goals, measure performance, and report on their 
accomplishments in their annual performance plans and annual 
performance reports. As a result of GPRA, DOJ has established a number 
of goals broadly intended to show how DOJ will carry out its law 
enforcement and administration of justice responsibilities. Within DOJ, 
the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices represent the United States in civil and 
criminal matters across the nation and its territories. U.S. Attorneys 
Offices localize the national criminal justice presence, while serving 
the different communities in which each is located. As the nation's 
principal litigators, U.S. Attorneys' performance is critical to DOJ 
achieving its goals and objectives under GPRA. Integral to achieving 
these goals and objectives is strategic human capital management--the 
marshaling, managing, and maintaining of the human capital needed to 
maximize government performance and ensure accountability. In this 
environment of increasing accountability and in light of the 
responsibilities of the U.S. Attorneys, it is important for Members of 
Congress to be able to understand how DOJ's strategic goals and 
objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys, what DOJ is doing to develop 
performance measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys, the tools DOJ uses 
to monitor the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and what 
initiatives DOJ has undertaken to foster strategic human capital 
management in U.S. Attorneys Offices.

This report is the third in a series of reports responding to your 
request that we examine various aspects of the management of U.S. 
Attorneys Offices.[Footnote 1] In this report, we describe (1) how DOJ 
strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys, (2) DOJ's plans 
and efforts to develop performance measures that apply to U.S. 
Attorneys, (3) the processes DOJ uses to monitor the performance of 
U.S. Attorneys Offices, and (4) DOJ efforts to move toward strategic 
human capital management for U.S. Attorneys Offices.

To address our objectives, we performed work at DOJ, including the 
Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the Justice 
Management Division (JMD), and 10 U.S. Attorneys' Offices, selected 
primarily on the basis of geographic dispersion and office size. At 
these locations, we interviewed officials and obtained documents on 
strategic management and performance measurement issues, human capital 
management, and basic operational issues in the context of laws, 
regulations, and available guidance issued by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), DOJ, and 
our best practices work. Our work at the 10 U.S. Attorneys Offices is 
not generalizable to the universe of U.S Attorneys Offices. We also 
surveyed 768 Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys from across the 94 
U.S. Attorneys Offices using a Web-based survey instrument. The survey 
was designed to obtain supervisors' views on various aspects of 
management and human capital issues affecting the offices in which they 
worked. The survey represents the views of the 532 Supervisory 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys who responded to our Web survey in early 2003.

We did our work between November 2001 and May 2004 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I discusses 
our scope and methodology in greater detail.

Background:

U.S. Attorneys are the principal litigators for the federal government 
in criminal and civil proceedings. U.S. Attorneys investigate and 
prosecute a wide range of criminal activities--including international 
and domestic terrorism, corporate fraud, public corruption, violent 
crime, and drug trafficking--and handle the majority of criminal cases 
prosecuted by DOJ. They also initiate civil actions to protect the 
interests of the United States, represent and defend the interests of 
the government in lawsuits filed against the government, and collect 
debts owed the federal government that are administratively 
uncollectible. EOUSA provides the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices with 
general executive assistance and direction, policy development, 
administrative management direction and oversight, operational 
support, and coordination with other components of the department and 
other federal agencies.[Footnote 2] In fiscal year 2003, the budget for 
U.S. Attorneys was about $1.5 billion to support approximately 5,000 
attorneys and a similar number of support staff. (More detailed 
information on the history, operations, and structure of U.S. Attorneys 
Offices can be found in app. II.)

U.S. Attorneys are not required to engage in strategic planning or 
performance planning under GPRA, but according to EOUSA's Director, 
U.S. Attorneys are required to contribute information to their parent 
agency, DOJ, so that DOJ can fulfill its GPRA requirements. GPRA's main 
documents are strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual 
performance reports. Together, these documents create a recurring cycle 
of planning, program execution, and reporting, thereby providing 
federal agencies the basis to manage for results. OMB Circular A-11 
lays out guidelines for agencies to follow when implementing GPRA. 
According to Circular A-11, strategic plans provide the framework for 
implementing GPRA and set out an agency's course of action and 
accomplishment over the long term. Strategic plans are to include, 
among other things, strategic or general goals that are statements of 
aim or purpose defined in a manner that allows a future assessment to 
be made on whether the goal was or is being achieved.

Complementing strategic plans are annual performance plans that set 
forth performance goals.[Footnote 3] According to Circular A-11, 
performance goals define targeted levels of performance against which 
actual achievements can be compared and can either be outcome goals--
which describe the intended result, effect, or consequence that will 
occur from carrying out a program or activity--or output goals--which 
describe the level of activity or effort that will be produced over a 
period of time or by a specified date. A performance measure is a 
particular value or characteristic used to measure output or outcome. 
To complete the cycle, annual performance reports provide information 
on actual performance compared to the projected performance levels or 
targets, defined by annual performance goals. (More detailed 
information on GPRA, Circular A-11, and governmentwide management and 
performance initiatives can be found in app. III.)

Results:

As required by GPRA, DOJ has established departmentwide strategic goals 
and objectives that apply to the activities of its components, 
including the activities of U.S. Attorneys. DOJ's Strategic Plan for 
2001 through 2006 and Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan presented 8 
strategic goals and 38 strategic objectives--6 of these strategic goals 
and 12 of the strategic objectives involved the use of U.S. Attorneys' 
resources. For fiscal years 2003 through 2008, DOJ has drafted, but had 
not yet released as of March 2004, a new departmentwide strategic plan 
that DOJ officials told us would consolidate many of the strategic 
goals and objectives in the previous strategic plan. DOJ's Fiscal Year 
2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys Congressional Submission showed 
2 strategic goals and 7 strategic objectives that will apply to U.S. 
Attorneys' activities. For example, the budget submission includes a 
strategic goal--prevent terrorism and promote the nation's security--
and one of the strategic objectives for that goal is to prevent, 
disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur. (App. IV 
provides a more detailed discussion of how DOJ strategic goals and 
objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys' activities.)

Figure 1: DOJ's Fiscal Year 2005 Strategic Goals and Objectives for 
U.S. Attorneys:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

DOJ has developed performance measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys' 
activities, and EOUSA is exploring ways to measure performance in 
individual U.S. Attorneys Offices. DOJ's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance 
Plan included performance measures applicable to U.S. Attorneys, which 
focused on selected areas, such as antiterrorism, civil litigation, and 
witness assistance, but did not cover activities related to violent 
crime, drugs, and other areas, such as fraud and corruption. 
Performance measures covering U.S. Attorneys' activities continued to 
evolve and, in its fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission, 
DOJ included an outcome measure--percentage of cases favorably 
resolved--that is intended to show how U.S. Attorneys contribute to 
DOJ's overall mission. According to DOJ officials, the performance 
measures for U.S. Attorneys and the format for presenting these 
measures will continue to evolve and will be revised as DOJ gains more 
experience with performance-based budgeting. In the meantime, EOUSA and 
individual U.S. Attorneys Offices have also been developing ways to 
measure performance in U.S. Attorneys Offices. For example, EOUSA has 
begun the process to engage a contractor to design performance measures 
that will link U.S. Attorneys Office activities to the overall U.S. 
Attorneys' budget; EOUSA has funded one district's efforts to develop 
its own strategic plan to help it measure districtwide performance; and 
EOUSA and individual U.S. Attorneys' Offices are implementing a DOJ 
initiative to curb gun violence, which includes developing related 
performance measures. (App. V provides a more detailed discussion on 
DOJ's and EOUSA's efforts to establish performance measures of U.S. 
Attorney activities.)

DOJ is making revisions to an ongoing internal evaluation program and 
developing a performance reporting process that are intended to provide 
DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S. Attorneys better tools for monitoring the 
performance of U.S. Attorneys' Offices. Specifically:

* EOUSA has redesigned its ongoing internal evaluation program for U.S. 
Attorneys Offices to focus more attention on "critical areas of 
management and performance," such as strategic planning, senior 
management operations, and DOJ's priority programs (e.g., 
antiterrorism, violent crimes and drugs, and civil rights 
prosecutions). As of February 2004, EOUSA had not completed all 
elements of the redesign, but our review of guidance issued by EOUSA as 
part of this redesign showed attention to results oriented management, 
including strategic planning and performance management. EOUSA 
officials also told us that they had made additional changes to the 
guidance and would continue to do so during the remainder of fiscal 
year 2004.

* EOUSA has begun to implement a process for collecting from U.S. 
Attorneys Offices information "based on qualitative and quantitative 
measures," regarding their efforts to meet DOJ's performance and 
management expectations. As EOUSA gains more experience, this process 
and the information being required from each U.S. Attorney's Office 
continues to evolve. We compared EOUSA's original template for 
collecting 2002 information and its revised draft template for 
collecting 2003 information. Our analysis showed that the latest draft 
guidelines were more specific and targeted than the earlier version. 
EOUSA officials told us that it may be difficult to develop a 
quantitative measure, because the factors affecting how each U.S. 
Attorney's Office could best meet an objective vary according to local 
situations.

(App. VI provides a more detailed discussion on DOJ's efforts to 
monitor the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices.)

As part of its efforts to move toward performance-based management, 
generally, DOJ and EOUSA have taken steps to integrate strategic human 
capital management into the day-to-day operations of EOUSA and U.S. 
Attorneys Offices. Specifically, in September 2002, DOJ published its 
Human Capital Strategic Plan. The plan applied to personnel in DOJ's 
components, such as the U.S. Attorneys, and was linked to its overall 
Strategic Plan. Subsequently, however, DOJ's Inspector General and OMB 
identified human capital challenges facing DOJ, for example, DOJ's 
ability to attract, train, and retain sufficiently qualified employees 
in many areas of operation. DOJ's Director of Personnel told us that 
DOJ is currently taking steps to move forward with its human capital 
efforts, including, for example, developing a new employee appraisal 
system. In addition to DOJ's departmentwide efforts, EOUSA is 
considering its own human capital initiatives, including hiring an 
experienced manager to lead EOUSA's human capital management effort. 
EOUSA is also working with U.S. Attorneys to develop new management 
training that is expected to include course work on individual 
performance management and organizational strategic planning. EOUSA is 
also working with the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Middle District of 
Tennessee to develop the prototype for a new appraisal format that is 
to link individual performance with organizational goals and 
objectives. (App. VII provides a more detailed discussion on DOJ's and 
EOUSA's efforts to integrate strategic human capital management into 
day-to-day operations.)

Concluding Observations:

U.S. Attorneys are the principal litigators for the federal government 
and localize the national criminal justice presence in communities 
across the country. The performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices is 
critical to DOJ achieving its strategic goals and objectives. DOJ, 
EOUSA, and U.S. Attorneys have taken or are considering various steps 
that are designed to move U.S. Attorneys Offices toward a more results 
oriented, performance-based environment consistent with GPRA and 
governmentwide efforts to strategically manage human capital. However, 
many initiatives are not yet complete and some are in the early 
planning stages. DOJ's, EOUSA's, and U.S. Attorneys' efforts thus far 
appear to be steps in the right direction. However, these initiatives 
will continue to evolve and they bear watching to help ensure that DOJ, 
EOUSA, and U.S. Attorneys take advantage of their momentum and build on 
the progress already made.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

On May 3, 2004, we requested comments on a draft of this report from 
the Attorney General. On May 19, 2004, DOJ officials informed us that 
the agency had no comments on the report. DOJ provided technical 
comments that we have incorporated where appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 21 days 
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to other interested congressional committees and to the Attorney 
General. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site 
at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions, please contact me or John F. Mortin, 
Assistant Director, at (202) 512-8777. You may also contact me by e-
mail at jonespl@gao.gov or Mr. Mortin at mortinj@gao.gov. Key 
contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX.

Signed by: 

Paul L. Jones, Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Our objectives in this report were to describe (1) how Department of 
Justice (DOJ) strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys, 
(2) DOJ's plans and efforts to develop performance measures that apply 
to U.S. Attorneys, (3) the processes DOJ uses to monitor the 
performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and (4) DOJ efforts to move 
toward strategic human capital management for U.S. Attorneys Offices.

We performed our work at DOJ, including the Executive Office for United 
States Attorneys (EOUSA) and the Justice Management Division (JMD) in 
Washington, D.C. We also performed work at 10 selected U.S. Attorneys 
Offices--the districts of Delaware, Nebraska, Nevada, and South 
Carolina; the Southern District of Indiana; the Western District of 
Washington; the Central District of California; the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania; the Western District of Texas; and the Eastern District 
of Virginia. We selected the 10 offices primarily to achieve geographic 
dispersion and a mix of office sizes.[Footnote 4] In making our final 
selections, we focused on districts where a U.S. Attorney had been 
appointed. At each of the 10 offices, we met with the U.S. Attorney and 
his or her key managers and using a standardized data collection 
instrument, we discussed issues and collected documents pertaining to 
strategic and performance planning, performance measurement, and goal 
setting; office and staff accountability; and human capital, including 
the allocation of human capital resources and recruiting and retention 
for attorneys and support staff. Our work at the 10 selected offices is 
not generalizable to the universe of U.S. Attorneys Offices. In 
addition, we obtained and reviewed reports and Web-based material on 
the overall management of DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S. Attorneys Offices; and 
laws and regulations governing DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S. Attorney 
operations. Furthermore, we obtained and reviewed relevant laws, 
regulations, and reports pertaining to the implementation of the 
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, performance and 
budget integration, and human capital strategic management.

To describe (1) how DOJ strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S. 
Attorneys and (2) DOJ's plans and efforts to develop performance 
measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys, we reviewed DOJ's Strategic Plan 
for fiscal years 2001 through 2006 and DOJ's Fiscal Year 2002 
Performance Report & Fiscal Year 2003 Revised Final Performance Plan, 
Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan. We also examined the U.S. Attorney's 
congressional budget submission for fiscal year 2004, submitted to 
Congress in February 2003, and its fiscal year 2005 congressional 
budget submission, submitted in February 2004, as part of the 
President's budget. We reviewed these documents in the context of GPRA 
and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, which provides 
guidance on (1) agency strategic and performance planning and reporting 
related to GPRA and (2) developing a performance-based budget under the 
President's performance and budget initiative. We also interviewed 
officials at DOJ, including JMD, EOUSA, and the 10 selected U.S. 
Attorneys Offices and obtained available documents on DOJ's and EOUSA's 
efforts to (1) develop performance measures for U.S. Attorneys and 
their offices and (2) link performance measures for U.S. Attorneys' 
performance to the U.S. Attorney's budget. In addition, we reviewed our 
past reports that addressed strategic and performance planning, 
including measuring performance, at DOJ and at other agencies 
throughout the federal government. Furthermore, we examined reports by 
DOJ's Office of Inspector General (OIG) on the top management 
challenges facing DOJ for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 pertaining 
to performance measurement and strategic planning and reviewed 
available OMB documents on federal agency efforts to implement the 
performance and budget initiative under the President's Management 
Agenda (PMA).

To describe the processes DOJ uses to monitor the performance of U.S. 
Attorneys Offices, we interviewed officials at EOUSA and the 10 
selected offices and obtained and reviewed available documentation on 
the strategies, policies, procedures, and practices used to assess the 
performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices and plans to develop new or 
revise existing performance assessment initiatives. We then discussed 
our examination of these documents with EOUSA officials to further gain 
an understanding of their efforts.

To describe DOJ efforts to move toward strategic human capital 
management for U.S. Attorneys Offices, we reviewed our reports, and OMB 
and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidelines on strategic human 
capital management.[Footnote 5] We also interviewed officials at JMD, 
EOUSA, and the 10 selected U.S. Attorneys Offices and obtained and 
analyzed documentation on their efforts to develop policies, 
procedures, and practices for adopting and implementing DOJ's and 
EOUSA's human capital strategies. In addition, we obtained and analyzed 
management challenge reports issued by DOJ's OIG and examined OMB 
budget documents and reports that discussed DOJ's progress implementing 
its human capital initiative. Furthermore, we discussed OIG and OMB 
comments about DOJ's efforts with its Director of Personnel.

To supplement our efforts on performance management and human capital 
issues, we also designed and implemented a Web-based survey of the 
universe of 768 Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys in each of the 94 
U.S. Attorneys Offices covering various topics related to the 
management of U.S. Attorneys Offices. We developed the survey to obtain 
the supervisors perceptions of key management topics pertaining to 
performance goals and measurement and aspects of U.S. Attorney's human 
capital framework, particularly workforce planning and training and 
staff development. To implement our survey, we obtained a list of the 
universe of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys from EOUSA and worked 
with EOUSA officials to ensure that the list accurately reflected all 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys in supervisory positions as of January 2003. 
To ensure that we obtained the highest response rate possible, we made 
the Web-based survey available to Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
from January 8, 2003, through February 28, 2003, and sent reminders via 
e-mail and telephone calls to supervisors. While the overall response 
rate was relatively high (70 percent overall), not all supervisors who 
completed the surveys provided responses to all the appropriate 
questions. We did not independently verify the accuracy or completeness 
of responses provided from the survey. Moreover, the responses 
presented in this report reflect the views of Supervisory Assistant 
U.S. Attorneys in early 2003, at the time the survey was conducted.

Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. 
However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may 
introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For 
example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in 
the sources of information that are available to respondents, or in how 
the data are entered into a database or were analyzed, can introduce 
unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the 
development of the questionnaire, the data collection, and the data 
analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, social 
science survey specialists designed the questionnaire in collaboration 
with our staff with subject matter expertise. Then, the draft 
questionnaire was pretested with a number of Supervisory U.S. Attorneys 
to ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to 
comprehend. When the data were analyzed, a second, independent analyst 
checked all computer programs. Since this was a Web-based survey, 
respondents entered their answers directly into the electronic 
questionnaire. This eliminates the need to have the data keyed into a 
database, thus removing an additional source of error.

Our work was performed between November 2001 and May 2004 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Information on the History, Operations, and Structure of 
U.S Attorneys Offices:

U.S. Attorneys, the principal litigators for the federal government in 
criminal and civil proceedings are, by statute, under supervisory 
control of the Attorney General. Since the earliest days of the 
nation's history, U.S. Attorneys have prosecuted cases in the federal 
judicial districts. The Judiciary Act of 1789 directed the President to 
appoint an attorney for each federal judicial district to prosecute all 
crimes and offenses against the United States and all civil actions in 
which the United States was concerned.[Footnote 6] At that time, U.S. 
Attorneys prosecuted only crimes specifically mentioned in the 
Constitution, such as piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. Today, under 
Title 28 U.S.C. 547, U.S. Attorneys prosecute criminal cases brought by 
the federal government; prosecute and defend civil cases in which the 
United States is a party; and collect debts owed the federal government 
that are administratively uncollectible.

Following the passage of the Judiciary Act, U.S. Attorneys functioned 
until 1820 without supervision by any executive agency. At that time, 
Congress paved the way for some central oversight of U.S. Attorneys by 
giving the President power to designate an officer within the 
Department of the Treasury to oversee U.S. Attorneys' activities. 
Authority over U.S. Attorneys then shifted to the Attorney General in 
1870 when the Department of Justice (DOJ) was established. Since then, 
U.S. Attorneys have served at the direction of the Attorney General. As 
the head of DOJ, the Attorney General is to supervise all litigation to 
which the United States is a party and direct all U.S. Attorneys and 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the discharge of their duties. While DOJ 
participates in the appointment process for each U.S. Attorney by 
recommending to the President the names of qualified nominees, each is 
a presidential appointee, confirmed by the Senate, and serves as the 
chief federal law enforcement official in their communities. As such, 
they serve to "localize" the national government's criminal justice's 
presence. Consequently, although the Attorney General supervises U.S. 
Attorneys, they also serve the different and diverse communities to 
which they are appointed. According to the Executive Office for United 
States Attorneys (EOUSA), a degree of tension will always exist between 
the local and national mandates of U.S. Attorneys.[Footnote 7]

EOUSA was established in 1953 in the Office of the Deputy Attorney 
General. Among other things, EOUSA provides general executive 
assistance to the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices and is responsible for 
preparing the U.S. Attorneys congressional budget submission and 
providing oversight and operational support. EOUSA also facilitates 
coordination between U.S. Attorneys Offices and other federal agencies 
and other DOJ components,[Footnote 8] including:

* litigating divisions---such as the Civil Division, Criminal Division, 
the Civil Rights Division, and the Antitrust Division--which, along 
with U.S. Attorneys, enforce federal criminal and civil laws, including 
civil rights, tax, antitrust, environmental, and civil justice 
statutes;

* investigative agencies--including the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI); the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); and the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)--which prevent and 
deter crime and arrest criminal suspects;[Footnote 9] and:

* the Justice Management Division (JMD) which, among other things, 
provides (1) assistance to senior DOJ managers, on various 
organizational, management, and administrative issues and (2) direct 
support to DOJ offices, boards, and divisions on such things as 
personnel, accounting, and budget matters.

According to DOJ's fiscal year 2004 budget submission for U.S. 
Attorneys, U.S. Attorneys Offices handle about 95 percent of the 
criminal cases prosecuted by DOJ. U.S. Attorneys receive most of their 
criminal referrals, or "matters," from federal investigative agencies 
or become aware of criminal activities in the course of investigating 
or prosecuting other cases. In addition, they receive criminal matters 
from state and local investigative agencies or, occasionally, from 
citizens. Once a matter is received, the U.S. Attorney's Office decides 
the appropriateness of bringing criminal charges and, if deemed 
appropriate, initiates prosecutions. Except for misdemeanor offenses 
and instances in which an alleged offender waives the right to a grand 
jury indictment, the U.S. Attorney presents evidence against an alleged 
offender to a grand jury. If the grand jury decides to return an 
indictment, the U.S. Attorney presents the criminal charges in open 
court during criminal arraignment. In its fiscal year 2005 
congressional budget submission, DOJ reported that during fiscal year 
2003, U.S. Attorneys Offices received 102,563 criminal matters. The 
offices reviewed and declined to bring charges on a total of 39,172 
criminal matters during the year and filed 59,998 criminal cases 
against 81,624 defendants in U.S. District Court.

U.S. Attorneys also initiate civil actions--called affirmative 
litigation--to assert and protect the interests of the United States 
and defend the interests of the government in lawsuits filed against 
the United States--referred to as defensive litigation. DOJ reported in 
its fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission that of all the 
civil cases pending as of the end of fiscal year 2003, 74 percent were 
defensive litigation. DOJ also stated that civil matters and cases 
represented a significant portion of U.S. Attorneys Offices' workload, 
reporting in its 2005 congressional budget submission that by the end 
of fiscal year 2003, pending civil cases represented 64 percent of the 
176,587 pending criminal and civil cases in U.S. Attorneys Offices.

The fiscal year 2004 appropriation for U.S. Attorneys was about $1.5 
billion to support approximately 5,000 attorneys and a similar number 
of support staff. Almost all these attorneys and staff worked in the 94 
federal judicial districts throughout the 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the 
Virgin Islands.[Footnote 10]

Figure 2 shows the boundaries of each of the 94 U.S. Attorney 
Districts.

Figure 2: 94 U.S. Attorneys Districts:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Key to U.S. Attorney Districts:

AK - District of Alaska; 
ALM - Middle District of Alabama; 
ALN - Northern District of Alabama; 
ALS - Southern District of Alabama; 
ARE --Eastern District of Arkansas; 
ARW - Western District of Arkansas; 
AZ - District of Arizona; 
CAC - Central District of California; 
CAE - Eastern District of California; 
CAN - Northern District of California; 
CAS - Southern District of California; 
CO --District of Colorado; 
CT - District of Connecticut; 
DC - District of Columbia; 
DE - District of Delaware; 
FLM - Middle District of Florida; 
FLN - Northern District of Florida; 
FLS - Southern District of Florida; 
GAM - Middle District of Georgia; 
GAN - Northern District of Georgia; 
GAS - Southern District of Georgia; 
GU--District of Guam; 
HI --District of Hawaii; 
IAN - Northern District of Iowa; 
IAS --Southern District of Iowa; 
ID - District of Idaho; 
ILC - Central District of Illinois; 
ILN - Northern District of Illinois; 
ILS - Southern District of Illinois; 
INN - Northern District of Indiana; 
INS - Southern District of Indiana; 
KS - District of Kansas; 
KYE - Eastern District of Kentucky; 
KYW - Western District of Kentucky; 
LAE--Eastern District of Louisiana; 
LAM - Middle District of Louisiana; 
LAW - Western District of Louisiana; 
MA - District of Massachusetts; 
MD - District of Maryland; 
ME - District of Maine; 
MIE - Eastern District of Michigan; 
MIW - Western District of Michigan; 
MN - District of Minnesota; 
MOE - Eastern District of Missouri; 
MOW - Western District of Missouri; 
MSN - Northern District of Mississippi; 
MSS - Southern District of Mississippi; 
MT - District of Montana; 
NCE - Eastern District of North Carolina; 
NCM - Middle District of North Carolina; 
NCW - Western District of North Carolina; 
ND - District of North Dakota; 
NE - District of Nebraska; 
NH - District of New Hampshire; 
NJ - District of New Jersey; 
NM - District of New Mexico; 
NMI - District of the Northern Marianas Islands; 
NV - District of Nevada; 
NYE - Eastern District of New York; 
NYN - Northern District of New York; 
NYS - Southern District of New York; 
NYW - Western District of New York; 
OHN - Northern District of Ohio; 
OHS - Southern District of Ohio; 
OKE - Eastern District of Oklahoma; 
OKN - Northern District of Oklahoma; 
OKW - Western District of Oklahoma; 
OR - District of Oregon; 
PAE - Eastern District of Pennsylvania; 
PAM - Middle District of Pennsylvania; 
PAW - Western District of Pennsylvania; 
PR - District of Puerto Rico; 
RI - District of Rhode Island; 
SC - District of South Carolina; 
SD - District of South Dakota; 
TNE - Eastern District of Tennessee; 
TNM - Middle District of Tennessee; 
TNW - Western District of Tennessee; 
TXE - Eastern District of Texas; 
TXN - Northern District of Texas; 
TXS - Southern District of Texas; 
TXW - Western District of Texas; 
UT - District of Utah; 
VAE - Eastern District of Virginia; 
VAW - Western District of Virginia; 
VI - District of the Virgin Islands; 
VT - District of Vermont; 
WAE - Eastern District of Washington; 
WAW - Western District of Washington; 
WIE - Eastern District of Wisconsin; 
WIW - Western District of Wisconsin; 
WVN - Northern District of West Virginia; 
WVS - Southern District of West Virginia; 
WY - District of Wyoming. 

Source: U.S. Attorneys Web page.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Governmentwide Management and Performance Initiatives 
Affecting DOJ and Its Components:

Since the mid-1990s, the federal government has implemented various 
initiatives to improve the management and performance of federal 
agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its components.

The Government Performance and Results Act:

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993[Footnote 11] 
seeks to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of 
federal programs by mandating that agencies set goals for program 
performance and measure results. Under GPRA, agencies are required to 
develop strategic plans that identify their long-range goals and 
objectives; annual performance plans that set forth annual goals and 
indicators of performance; and annual performance reports that describe 
the actual levels of performance achieved compared to the annual goal. 
These plans and reports are designed to define a course to improve the 
performance of government programs and operations and are intended to 
show what is being accomplished with the money that is being spent. 
GPRA plans and reports are developed for use by:

* agency officials and staff in leading, managing, and carrying out 
federal programs and activities;

* the President and Congress when forming programmatic and policy 
decisions and for oversight; and:

* the public for information on the purpose and effectiveness of 
programs and activities and the resources spent in conducting them.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 provides guidelines 
for agencies to follow when developing GPRA plans and reports. 
According to the July 2002 A-11 Circular,[Footnote 12] strategic plans 
are to include general goals, which define how an agency is to carry 
out its mission over time. These general goals are to be expressed to 
allow for a future assessment of whether the goal was or is being 
achieved. Strategic plans can also include strategic objectives--
statements of aim or purpose, which are not directly measurable, but 
can be used to group general goals.

Annual performance plans are to contain performance goals, performance 
objectives, and performance measures or indicators that target levels 
of performance. Annual performance goals are to be expressed as 
tangible, measurable objectives against which achievement can be 
compared. Performance goals are to be either (1) outcome goals, which 
describe intended results, effects, or consequences that were expected 
to occur from carrying out a program or activity or (2) output goals, 
which measure what an agency is to produce. Agencies are instructed by 
OMB Circular A-11 that performance goals and indicators typically are 
to have a numerical target level or other measurable value, which 
facilitates the future assessment of whether the goals and indicators 
were actually achieved.

Finally, annual performance reports are to provide information on 
agencies' actual performance and their progress in achieving the goals 
and objectives in the strategic plan and annual performance plan. 
Actual performance is to be compared to the projected performance 
levels or targets in the annual performance plan. Where target levels 
are not achieved, the agency is to explain why and describe the steps 
to be taken to accomplish goals in the future. According to Circular A-
11, agencies may combine performance reports with performance plans.

Under GPRA and OMB Circular A-11, only agencies, such as DOJ, and not 
components of agencies, such as U.S. Attorneys, are required to prepare 
strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports. However, 
strategic plans are to focus on those programs and activities, like 
those of U.S. Attorneys, that help agencies carry out their mission, 
and annual performance plans are to link agencies daily operations to 
the broad goals and objectives in the strategic plans.

The Performance and Budget Initiative:

Related to GPRA is the Performance and Budget Initiative. In the summer 
of 2001, the President announced that agencies would be required to 
integrate their budgets with performance information to provide a 
greater focus on performance and increase the value and use of program 
performance information in resource and management decisions.[Footnote 
13] Beginning with the budget for fiscal year 2005, OMB requires 
agencies to prepare a performance budget in lieu of the performance 
plan. According to the latest OMB Circular A-11, dated July 2003, the 
performance budget is supposed to satisfy all statutory requirements 
for the annual performance plan required by GPRA.

Under the July 2003 OMB Circular A-11, strategic goals are to be paired 
with related long-term performance goals (outcomes) and annual 
performance goals (mainly outputs); target levels of performance are to 
be set for performance goals. According to the Circular, resources and 
organizational efforts should be directly linked to outputs, and the 
resources and outputs should be summed to outcomes. Figure 3 uses a 
pyramid, developed by OMB, to illustrate the relationship between 
strategic, outcome, and output goals and resources under OMB's fully 
integrated goal structure.

Figure 3: Relationship between Strategic, Outcome, and Output Goals and 
Resources under a Fully Integrated Goal Structure:

[See PDF for image]

[A] Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to 
prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of 
FTE employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing 
the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of 
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number 
of compensable days in the fiscal year.

[End of figure]

OMB has also begun to link performance and the budget process under its 
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Using PART, OMB has been rating 
programs in four areas--program design, strategic planning, program 
management, and program results--and intends to use the results of 
these assessments during the budget review process to diagnose how 
programs can be improved and to inform budget and management 
decisions.[Footnote 14] According to OMB Circular A-11, PART 
assessments will span all executive branch programs over the next 
several years. In addition, OMB has established a quarterly rating 
system to grade agency (1) progress and (2) status in meeting the 
President's Management Agenda (PMA). Budget and performance integration 
is one of the five initiatives in PMA, which uses a score card to 
reflect progress: a score of red indicates that the initiative is in 
serious jeopardy; a score of yellow indicates that there is slippage in 
the implementation schedule requiring adjustments by the agency to 
achieve the initiative on a timely basis; and a score of green 
indicates that implementation is proceeding according to plans. For 
OMB's status score, red indicates that the agency's efforts has any of 
a number of serious flaws; yellow indicates that the agency has met 
some, but not all of the criteria or standards for success; and green 
indicates that the agency meets all of the standards for success.

Strategic Human Capital Management:

Related to the government's overall effort to improve the management 
and performance of federal agencies is strategic human capital 
management. In January 2001, we designated strategic human capital 
management as a governmentwide high-risk area.[Footnote 15] In January 
2003, we reported that the basic problem, which continues today, has 
been the long-standing lack of a consistent approach to marshaling, 
managing, and maintaining the human capital needed to maximize 
government performance and ensure accountability.[Footnote 16] In our 
January 2003 report, we stated that two principles are central to human 
capital management:

* People are assets whose value can be enhanced through investment. As 
with any investment, the goal is to maximize value while managing risk.

* An organization's human capital approaches should be designed, 
implemented, and assessed by the standard of how well they help the 
organization achieve and pursue its mission.

We also said that agencies face challenges in four key areas:

* Leadership: Top leadership in the agencies must provide the committed 
and inspired attention needed to address human capital and related 
organizational transformation issues.

* Strategic human capital planning: Agencies human capital planning 
efforts need to be more fully and demonstrably integrated with mission 
and critical program goals.

* Acquiring, developing, and retaining talent: Additional efforts are 
needed to improve recruiting, hiring, professional development, and 
retention strategies to ensure that agencies have the needed talent.

* Results oriented organizational cultures: Agencies continue to lack 
organizational cultures that promote high performance and 
accountability and empower and include employees in setting and 
accomplishing programmatic goals.

Various GAO products on strategic human capital management are listed 
at the end of this report.

Strategic human capital management has also been designated as one of 
the five governmentwide initiatives under PMA. The Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM) is leading the federal government's strategic 
management of human capital initiative. Among other things, OPM is 
responsible for developing tools and providing support to help agencies 
succeed in their human capital transformation efforts. Similar to the 
performance and budget integration initiative, OMB has been grading 
agency progress and status on strategic human capital management using 
a red, green, and yellow scoring system.

[End of section]

Appendix IV: DOJ's Departmentwide Strategic Goals and Objectives 
Applicable to U.S. Attorneys:

As required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 
1993, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has developed departmentwide 
strategic goals and objectives that apply to the activities of its 
components, including U.S. Attorneys. DOJ's Strategic Plan for Fiscal 
Years 2001 through 2006 and Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan 
identified 6 of 8 strategic goals, and 12 of 38 long-term strategic 
objectives that applied to the activities of U.S. Attorneys. DOJ has 
drafted a new departmentwide strategic plan for fiscal years 2003 
through 2008 that is expected to consolidate many of the strategic 
goals and objectives in the previous strategic plan it will replace. 
DOJ's fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission, which, 
according to DOJ, corresponds to its new strategic plan,[Footnote 17] 
showed that 2 strategic goals and 7 strategic objectives are to apply 
to U.S. Attorneys' activities.

DOJ's Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 Strategic Plan Included 
Strategic Goals and Objectives That Applied to U.S. Attorneys' 
Activities:

DOJ's Fiscal Year 2001 through 2006 Strategic Plan identified 8 
strategic goals and 38 long-term strategic objectives. DOJ's Fiscal 
Year 2004 Performance Plan listed 38 annual performance goals that were 
identical to DOJ's 38 long-term strategic objectives. These strategic 
objectives/annual performance goals were presented in the context of 
DOJ budget activities and, among other things, showed the resources--
Full-time equivalents (FTEs) and dollars--by component organization, 
needed to address them.[Footnote 18] For example, DOJ's Fiscal Year 
2004 Performance Plan showed that to address DOJ's annual performance 
goal 2.1--reduce the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent 
crime, especially as it stems from the illegal use of guns or from 
organized criminal enterprises--DOJ expected that it would use 12,624 
FTEs from various components, including the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), the Criminal Division, and U.S. Attorneys, at a 
cost of about $1.9 billion during fiscal year 2004. U.S. Attorneys were 
expected to contribute 1,751 FTEs and $238 million toward this effort.

The plan identified U.S. Attorneys as key players engaged in addressing 
various strategic objectives/annual performance goals. DOJ's Fiscal 
Year 2004 Performance Plan, showed that 6 of 8 annual strategic goals 
and 12 of 38 strategic objectives/annual performance goals involved the 
use of U.S. Attorneys' resources in meeting DOJ's mission. Table 1 
shows the 6 DOJ strategic goals and the 12 strategic objectives/annual 
performance goals that, according to DOJ's fiscal year 2004 Performance 
Plan, involved the use of U.S. Attorney resources.

Table 1: DOJ Strategic Goals and Strategic Objectives/Annual 
Performance Goals Applicable to U.S. Attorneys for Fiscal Year 2004, 
and Associated Actual and Requested Resources for Fiscal Years 2002, 
2003, and 2004:

Dollars in millions.

DOJ strategic goal[A]: 1. Protect America against the threat of terrorism.

DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 1.1 Prevent 
terrorism--Prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before 
they occur; 1.2 Investigate terrorist acts--Develop and implement the 
full range of resources available to investigate terrorist incidents, 
bringing their perpetrators to justice; 
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 15; 
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $2; 
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 55; 
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $7; 
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 55; 
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $7.

DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 1.3 Prosecute 
terrorist acts--Vigorously prosecute those who have committed, or 
intend to commit, terrorist acts against the United States; 
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 281; 
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $63; 
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 463; 
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $61; 
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 463; 
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $61.

DOJ strategic goal[A]: 2. Enforce federal criminal laws.

DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 2.1 Violent Crime--
Reduce the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent crime, 
especially as it stems from illegal use of guns or from organized 
criminal enterprise; 
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 1,661; 
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $219; 
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 1,720; 
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $228; 
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 1,751; 
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $238.

DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 2.2 Drugs--Reduce 
the threat, trafficking, and related violence of illegal drugs by 
identifying, disrupting, and dismantling drug trafficking 
organizations; 
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 2,725; 
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $359; 
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 2,869; 
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $380; 
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 2,916; 
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $395.

DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 2.4 White-collar 
crime--Combat white-collar crime and economic crime, especially 
cybercrime; 
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 2,644; 
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $348; 
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 2,798; 
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $370; 
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 2,844; 
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $384.

DOJ strategic goal[A]: 3. Prevent and reduce crime and violence by 
assisting state, tribal, local, and community-based programs.

DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 3.1 Law 
enforcement--Improve the crime fighting and criminal justice 
administration capabilities of state, tribal, and local governments; 
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 20; 
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $3; 
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 22; 
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $3; 
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 22; 
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $3.

DOJ strategic goal[A]: 4. Protect the rights and interests of the 
American people by legal representation, enforcement of federal laws, 
and defense of U.S. interests.

DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 4.1 Civil rights--
Uphold the civil rights of all Americans, reduce racial 
discrimination, and promote reconciliation through vigorous 
enforcement of civil rights laws; 
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 18; 
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $2; 
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 19; 
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $3; 
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 19; 
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $3.

DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 4.2 Environment--
Promote the stewardship of America's environment and natural resources 
through the enforcement and defense of environmental laws and programs; 
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 62; 
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $8; 
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 67; 
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $9; 
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 67; 
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $9.

DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 4.5 Civil laws--
Effectively represent the interests of the United States in all civil 
matters for which DOJ has jurisdiction; 
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 2,418; 
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $306; 
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 2,610; 
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $346; 
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 2,656; 
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $358.

DOJ strategic goal[A]: 5. Fairly and effectively administer the 
immigration and naturalization laws of the United States.

DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 5.1. Enforcement--
Secure America's borders, especially to reduce the incidence of alien 
smuggling; 
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 435; 
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $47; 
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 470; 
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $62; 
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 470; 
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $62.

DOJ strategic goal[A]: 7. Protect the federal judiciary and provide 
critical support to the federal justice system to ensure it operates 
effectively.

DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 7.2 Victims rights-
-Protect the rights of crime victims and assist them in moving through 
the processes of the federal justice system; 
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 258; 
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $31; 
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 279; 
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $37; 
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 279; 
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $37.

Total; 
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 10,537; 
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $1,388; 
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 11,372; 
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $1,506; 
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 11,542; 
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $1,557. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report & 
Fiscal Year 2003 Revised Final Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2004 
Performance Plan.

[A] DOJ's Fiscal Year 2001 through 2006 Strategic Plan identified 8 
strategic goals and 38 long-term strategic objectives. DOJ's Fiscal 
Year 2004 Performance Plan discussed 38 annual performance goals that 
were identical to DOJ's 38 long-term strategic objectives.

[B] Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to 
prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of 
FTE employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing 
the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of 
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number 
of compensable days in the fiscal year.

[End of table]

JMD officials told us that DOJ's strategic plan is produced using what 
they described as a "top down" approach to strategic planning. Under 
this approach, DOJ's Strategic Plan Executive Working Group, composed 
of officials from the Offices of the Attorney General, the Deputy 
Attorney General, and the Associate Attorney General, and other DOJ 
offices, identifies strategic goals and objectives. JMD's Management 
and Planning Staff (MPS) solicits components, including EOUSA, for 
background, strategies, and other input supporting the goals and 
objectives that affect their organizations, and develops a draft 
strategic plan. The draft plan is reviewed by the Executive Working 
Group and presented to DOJ's Strategic Management Council, which 
represents DOJ's key components, for concurrence before the Attorney 
General approves it. In February 2004, JMD officials told us that EOUSA 
was currently providing JMD input toward the development of DOJ's 
fiscal years 2003 through 2008 strategic plan.

DOJ's Fiscal Year 2005 Congressional Budget Submission Includes Revised 
Strategic Goals and Objectives Applicable to U.S. Attorneys Activities:

JMD officials said that EOUSA had recently provided JMD input toward 
the development of DOJ's Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008 Strategic Plan, 
which had not been issued as of March 2004. However, JMD officials said 
that the new strategic goals and objectives applicable to U.S. 
Attorneys were published in the Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget 
United States Attorneys Congressional Submission, which is organized to 
better conform with OMB Circular A-11 regarding performance and budget 
integration.

JMD officials told us that the new strategic plan would substantively 
be similar to DOJ's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006 
and they had consolidated strategic goals and objectives resulting in 
fewer goals and objectives than in the previous plan. In fact, the 
fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission, published in February 
2004, shows that U.S. Attorneys will play a role in 2 strategic goals 
and 7 strategic objectives, as compared with 6 goals and 12 objectives 
in the previous plan.[Footnote 19] Specifically, during fiscal year 
2005, U.S. Attorneys are expected to need about $70.6 million and 534 
FTEs toward achieving DOJ's new strategic goal I--Prevent Terrorism and 
Promote the Nation's Security. Also, during fiscal year 2005, U.S. 
Attorneys are expected to need $1,476.9 billion and 11,156 FTEs toward 
achieving DOJ's new strategic goal II--Enforce Federal Laws and 
Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People. Like the 
Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan, the Fiscal Year 2005 Performance 
Budget United States Attorneys Congressional Submission provided a 
breakdown of budgetary resources (FTEs and dollars) by strategic 
objective. Table 2 shows the 2 strategic goals and 7 objectives in 
which U.S. Attorneys play a role, as discussed in DOJ's Fiscal Year 
2005 Performance Budget United States Attorneys Congressional 
Submission, and the associated budgetary resources for Fiscal Years 
2003, 2004, and 2005.

Table 2: DOJ's Strategic Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2005 That 
Apply to U.S. Attorneys, and Associated Actual, Appropriated, and 
Requested Budgetary Resources for Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005:

Dollars in millions.

DOJ strategic goal: 1. Prevent terrorism and promote the nation's 
security.

DOJ strategic objective: 1.1 Prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist 
operations before they occur; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 53; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $7; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 53; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $7; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 53; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $7.

DOJ strategic objective: 1.2 Investigate and prosecute those who have 
committed, or intend to commit, terrorist acts in the United States; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 448; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $61; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 448; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $59; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 481; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $64.

DOJ strategic goal: 2. Enforce federal laws and represent the rights 
and interests of the American people.

DOJ strategic objective: 2.1 Reduce the threat, incidence, and 
prevalence of violent crime, including crimes against children; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 3,219; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $435; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 3,453; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $456; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 3,473; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $459.

DOJ strategic objective: 2.2 Reduce the threat, trafficking, use, and 
related violence of illegal drugs; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 2,398; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $324; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 2,464; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $326; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 2,551; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $337.

DOJ strategic objective: 2.3 Combat white-collar, economic crime, and 
cybercrime; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 2,622; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $354; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 2,697; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $356; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 2,701; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $357.

DOJ strategic objective: 2.4 Uphold the civil and Constitutional rights 
of all Americans, and protect vulnerable members of society; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 19; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $3; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 19; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $2; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 19; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $2.

DOJ strategic objective: 2.5 Enforce federal statutes, uphold the rule 
of law, and vigorously represent the interests of the United States in 
all matters for which the Department has jurisdiction; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 2,295; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $323; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 2,406; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $318; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 2,421; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $320.

Totals[B]; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 11,054; 
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $1,506; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 11,540; 
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $1,525; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 11,699; 
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $1,548. 

Source: DOJ Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget for U.S. Attorneys, 
Congressional Submission:

[A] Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to 
prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of 
FTE employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing 
the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of 
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number 
of compensable days in the fiscal year.

[B] Totals may not add due to rounding.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving:

The Department of Justice's (DOJ) performance measures for U.S. 
Attorneys are evolving. U.S. Attorneys performance measures included in 
DOJ's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan focused on selected areas, such 
as antiterrorism, but did not cover activities, such as violent crime 
and drugs. Responding to a 2003 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
initiative requiring agencies to develop performance-based budgets, DOJ 
included an outcome-oriented performance measure--percentage of cases 
favorably resolved--in its U.S. Attorneys' fiscal year 2005 
congressional budget submission. According to DOJ officials, the 
performance measures for U.S. Attorneys and the format for presenting 
them will continue to evolve and will be revised, as DOJ gains more 
experience with performance-based budgeting. In addition to DOJ's 
efforts, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) and 
some U.S. Attorneys Offices have also undertaken initiatives directed 
toward measuring U.S. Attorneys' performance.

U.S. Attorney Performance Measures in Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan 
Were Focused on Some U.S. Attorney Activities:

DOJ's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan contained performance measures 
for some U.S. Attorneys activities, but the measures did not capture 
the full scope of U.S. Attorneys responsibilities. Our analysis of 
DOJ's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan showed that it contained 88 
performance measures that applied across DOJ's components, although 
most applied to the activities of DOJ components other than U.S. 
Attorneys, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the 
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Office of Justice 
Programs. Specifically, our review of the plan showed that 3 of the 88 
performance measures applied exclusively to the activities of U.S. 
Attorneys; another 5 measures applied to U.S. Attorneys and other DOJ 
litigating components. Activities covered by the relevant performance 
measures included antiterrorism, criminal and civil environmental 
crime, civil litigation, witness assistance, and alternative dispute 
resolution. Other areas including violent crime, drugs, and some white-
collar crime such as fraud and public corruption, did not have related 
performance measures for U.S. Attorneys. Table 3 shows the performance 
measures that applied to the activities of U.S. Attorneys by strategic 
goal and strategic objective/annual performance goal for fiscal year 
2004.

Table 3: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys' Activities in DOJ's 
Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan:

Strategic goal: Strategic goal I--Protect America against the threat of 
terrorism: 

Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Develop and implement the 
full range of resources available to investigate terrorist incidents, 
bringing their perpetrators to justice and vigorously prosecute those 
who have committed, or intend to commit, terrorist acts against the 
United States; 
Performance measure: Terrorist-related convictions; 
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys; 
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: N/A[A].

Strategic goal: Strategic goal II--Enforce federal criminal laws: 

Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Combat white-collar crime 
and economic crime, especially cybercrime; 
Performance measure: Percent of criminal environmental and wildlife 
cases successfully litigated; 
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys and the Environment and 
Natural Resources Division; 
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 80%.

Strategic goal: Strategic goal IV--Protect the rights and interests of 
the American people by legal representation.

Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Promote the stewardship of 
America's environment and natural resources through the enforcement and 
defense of environmental laws and programs; 
Performance measure: Percent of civil environmental cases successfully 
resolved; 
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys and the Environment and 
Natural Resources Division; 
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 80% affirmative; 
75% defensive.

Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Effectively represent the 
interests of the United States in all civil matters for which the DOJ 
has jurisdiction; 
Performance measure: Percent of favorable resolutions in civil cases; 
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys and the Civil Division; 
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 80%.

Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Effectively represent the 
interests of the United States in all civil matters for which the DOJ 
has jurisdiction; 
Performance measure: Percent of favorable resolutions in civil 
immigration cases; 
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys and the Civil Division; 
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 85%.

Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Effectively represent the 
interests of the United States in all civil matters for which the DOJ 
has jurisdiction; 
Performance measure: Percentage of cases resolved using alternative 
dispute resolution; 
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys and the Civil Division, the 
Civil Rights Division, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and 
the Tax Division; 
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 65%.

Strategic goal: Strategic goal VII--Protect the federal judiciary and 
provide critical support to the federal justice system to ensure it 
operates effectively.

Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Protect the rights of 
crime victims and assist them in moving through the processes of the 
federal justice system; 
Performance measure: Victims receiving assistance; 
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys; 
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 100%.

Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Protect the rights of 
crime victims and assist them in moving through the processes of the 
federal justice system; 
Performance measure: Witnesses receiving emergency assistance; 
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys; 
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 100%. 

Source: GAO Analysis of DOJ's Fiscal Year 2001 through 2006 Strategic 
Plan and Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2003 Final 
Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan.

[A] According to DOJ, targeted levels of performance were not projected 
for this indicator. JMD officials said that there are a few measures in 
the performance plan that are included for lack of better or more 
informative measures.

[End of table]

According to JMD officials, DOJ's annual performance plan, which was 
prepared by JMD's Budget Staff, included "the highest level" or most 
outcome-oriented performance measures related to DOJ's strategic goals 
and objectives. They said that DOJ components, including EOUSA for U.S. 
Attorneys, developed most proposed measures and DOJ Budget Staff 
selected from the proposed measures those that were to be included in 
the performance plan. Officials said that in winnowing down the 
potential measures, Budget Staff considered whether the measure was 
outcome oriented; represented a large amount of DOJ resources; and was 
of such importance that it warranted inclusion, even if it represented 
a small program. They said they also considered the quality and 
validity of data to be used to measure performance.

JMD officials told us that U.S. Attorneys followed the same general 
approach in developing their performance measures as other DOJ 
components. However, EOUSA and JMD officials pointed out that U.S. 
Attorneys have a unique role in the law enforcement process. They said 
that U.S. Attorneys prosecute cases investigated by federal law 
enforcement agencies within DOJ, including FBI and ATF, and those from 
many other departments, such as Customs and Border Protection in the 
Department of Homeland Security, the Postal Inspection Service, and the 
Internal Revenue Service. They also pointed out that U.S. Attorneys 
work with federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations to 
establish strategies for dealing with particular crimes confronting 
local jurisdictions.

EOUSA and JMD officials also explained that, while it can be argued 
that the U.S. Attorneys have considerable influence over local crime 
efforts, it can also be argued that the investigating components have 
considerable influence over particular types of crime investigated, and 
each (the U.S. Attorneys and investigating components) is dependent 
upon the other for success. They added that, given the complexity of 
the U.S. Attorney's role in the law enforcement process, it would be 
difficult to develop measures that capture all U.S. Attorney 
activities. These officials further stated that U.S. Attorney 
performance outcomes are, therefore, often reflected in the outcomes 
associated with other DOJ components, such as FBI, and, by the 
litigating components within the department that have policy-level 
responsibility for particular areas of the law, such as the Criminal 
Section of the Civil Rights Division in human trafficking cases.

DOJ Has Begun to Revise U.S. Attorney Performance Measures in Line with 
New Performance Budget Format:

As part of its effort to implement OMB guidelines on performance and 
budget integration, DOJ has been revising U.S. Attorney performance 
measures. According to OMB's July 2003 Circular A-11, a performance 
budget consists of a performance oriented framework, within which, at a 
minimum, resources were to be aligned at the program level, and 
agencies were encouraged to align resources at the performance goal 
level. In addition, agencies were to include a comparison of (1) total 
program benefits and total program costs, using quantitative, objective 
data to the maximum extent possible, as well as qualitative or 
judgmental material and (2) the marginal benefits and the marginal 
costs associated with the additional funds or reduced funding proposed. 
To address these new requirements, DOJ redesigned the performance and 
resources tables included in its fiscal year 2004 and 2005 
congressional budget submissions.

DOJ's Redesigned Performance and Resources Tables for its Fiscal Year 
2004 Congressional Budget Submission for U.S. Attorneys:

For its fiscal year 2004 congressional budget submission for U.S. 
Attorneys, DOJ used a revised format to present its performance and 
resources tables. Following this format, DOJ grouped the 12 strategic 
objectives applicable to U.S. Attorneys from the Fiscal Year 2001 
through 2006 Strategic Plan into 5 program activities[Footnote 20]--
antiterrorism, violent and trafficking crimes, white-collar crime, 
civil litigation, and training. The 5 program activities and their 
corresponding strategic objectives were placed under three groups 
called decision units--criminal, civil, and legal education. The 
criminal decision unit covered 3 program activities--antiterrorism, 
violent and trafficking crime, and white-collar crime; the civil 
decision unit covered 1 program activity--civil litigation; and the 
legal education decision unit covered 1 program activity--training. For 
each of the 5 program activities, DOJ showed the number of U.S. 
Attorney FTEs and related budgetary resources used during fiscal year 
2002, projected to be used for fiscal year 2003, and requested for 
fiscal year 2004. Under the criminal decision unit, DOJ also showed 
actual and projected data, categorized by DOJ as performance measures, 
for activities involving defendants (i.e., prosecuted and guilty) for 
various types of crime, including terrorism, violent crime, white-
collar crime, and other crimes. For the civil decision unit, DOJ showed 
the number of affirmative and civil defense cases filed and the number 
and percentage of favorable judgments. For the legal education decision 
unit, DOJ showed the number of DOJ and non-DOJ students trained. The 
performance and resources tables in the fiscal year 2004 budget 
submission for U.S. Attorneys provided placeholders, but no 
information, for outcome measures associated with the 3 decision units.

Figures 4, 5, and 6 reprint the performance and resources tables for 
each of the three decision units in the fiscal year 2004 congressional 
budget submission for U.S. Attorneys.

Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S 
Attorneys--Criminal Decision Unit:

[See PDF for image]

Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget 
Submission for U.S. Attorneys:

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates 
relating to personnel resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) 
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the 
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of 
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number 
of compensable days in the fiscal year.

Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget 
Submission for U.S. Attorneys:

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates 
relating to personnel resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) 
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the 
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of 
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number 
of compensable days in the fiscal year.

[End of figure]

Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S 
Attorneys--Civil Decision Unit:

[See PDF for image]

Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget 
Submission for U.S. Attorneys.

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates 
relating to personnel resources in terms of full -time equivalent (FTE) 
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the 
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of 
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number 
of compensable days in the fiscal year.

[End of figure]

Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S 
Attorneys--Legal Education Decision Unit:

[See PDF for image]

Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget 
Submission for U.S. Attorneys:

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates 
relating to personnel resources in terms of full -time equivalent (FTE) 
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the 
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of 
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number 
of compensable days in the fiscal year.

[End of figure]

According to JMD officials, the tables presented in the 2004 
congressional budget submission were based on a template used for all 
DOJ component agencies. One JMD official, responsible for preparing 
DOJ's congressional budget submission for its component agencies, 
including U.S. Attorneys, told us that DOJ had developed the format and 
aligned selected strategic objectives for each DOJ component in order 
to comply with OMB Circular A-11 budget and performance integration 
requirements. The JMD official further explained that in order to 
develop the tables and help it categorize the major program activities 
and the key performance measures that applied to each component, JMD 
officials worked with component agencies, for example, EOUSA in the 
case of U.S. Attorneys.

DOJ's Performance and Resources Tables in Fiscal Year 2005 
Congressional Budget Submission for U.S. Attorneys Continued to Evolve:

For its fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission for U.S. 
Attorneys, DOJ used the new performance and resources table format and 
included more performance information, in keeping with OMB's directive 
that agencies present their fiscal year 2005 budgets as their annual 
performance plans. As in its fiscal year 2004 submission for U.S. 
Attorneys, DOJ grouped the applicable strategic goals and objectives 
under the 3 decision units--criminal, civil, and legal education. As 
discussed earlier, DOJ identified 7 strategic objectives for U.S. 
Attorneys (replacing the 12 used in the fiscal year 2004 budget) that 
are to be published in DOJ's new strategic plan. DOJ also reduced the 
number of program activities from 5 to 4. Specifically, the criminal 
decision unit had 2 program activities--1 for antiterrorism and 1 new 
program activity that combined violent crime, drug trafficking, and 
white-collar crime; the civil decision unit had 1 program activity---
civil litigation; and the legal education unit had 1 program activity-
-training. DOJ reported U.S. Attorney FTEs and related budgetary 
resources used during fiscal year 2003, projected to be used for fiscal 
year 2004, and requested for fiscal year 2005 for each program 
activity.

As in DOJ's 2004 budget submission for U.S. Attorneys, its fiscal year 
2005 submission included data for each decision unit, grouped under the 
heading performance measures, for example, defendant-related activity 
for the criminal decision unit. In addition, the fiscal year 2005 
submission presented an outcome measure--percentage of cases favorably 
resolved--with data for the criminal and civil decision units. For the 
criminal decision unit, it showed that U.S. Attorneys had achieved a 
favorable resolution in 91.7 percent of criminal cases during fiscal 
year 2003 and expected to achieve a favorable resolution in 91.6 
percent of criminal cases-its target--during fiscal years 2004 and 
2005. Under the civil decision unit, DOJ reported that U.S. Attorneys 
had achieved a favorable resolution for 85.6 percent of civil cases 
during fiscal year 2003 and was expecting to achieve a favorable 
resolution in its target of 85.6 percent of civil cases in fiscal years 
2004 and 2005. No outcome measure was included for the legal education 
decision unit. Figures 7, 8, and 9 reprint the performance and resource 
tables for U.S. Attorneys from the fiscal year 2005 congressional 
budget submission.

Figure 7: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S 
Attorneys--Criminal Decision Unit:

[See PDF for image]

Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys 
Congressional Budget Submission:

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates 
relating to personnel resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) 
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the 
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of 
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number 
of compensable days in the fiscal year.

[End of figure]

Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S 
Attorneys--Civil Decision Unit:

[See PDF for image]

Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys 
Congressional Budget Submission:

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates 
relating to personnel resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) 
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the 
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of 
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number 
of compensable days in the fiscal year.

[End of figure]

Figure 9: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S 
Attorneys--Legal Education Decision Unit:

[See PDF for image]

Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys 
Congressional Budget Submission:

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates 
relating to personnel resources in terms of full -time equivalent (FTE) 
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the 
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of 
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number 
of compensable days in the fiscal year.

[End of figure]

In a February 2004 meeting on the U.S. Attorneys' fiscal year 2005 
congressional budget submissions, JMD and EOUSA budget officials 
explained to us changes in DOJ's 2005 budget tables for U.S. Attorneys. 
The officials said that the 2005 submission did not include some of the 
goals and measures that appeared in the Fiscal Year 2004 Performance 
Plan, such as U.S. Attorney measures related to victim assistance, 
because DOJ had streamlined its goals and objectives, focusing on 
primary mission areas, in accordance with OMB instructions. They added 
that DOJ would like all of its litigating units to focus on their 
contributions to DOJ's overall mission.

These officials said that DOJ's outcome measure--percentage of cases 
favorably resolved--included in the U.S. Attorneys' budget submission 
was designed to apply to all of DOJ's litigating units. However, the 
officials also noted that the fiscal year 2005 budget table for a 
component does not always present an outcome measure for an activity in 
which it is involved. For example, the officials pointed out that the 
U.S. Attorney budget table does not present an outcome measure for 
terrorism even though U.S. Attorneys are involved in DOJ antiterrorism 
efforts; rather the outcome for terrorism is included in the FBI 
performance table. They said that in future years DOJ will attempt to 
cross-reference the performance of one component with another in those 
instances where outcomes were linked; for example, future budget tables 
for U.S. Attorneys would likely include a cross-reference showing that 
their efforts contributed to the FBI's antiterrorist outcome.

With regard to the legal education decision unit, JMD and EOUSA 
officials told us that DOJ considered not including it as a decision 
unit for U.S. Attorneys, because other components view training as a 
support function and do not include it as a budget decision unit. 
However, DOJ decided to include it as a decision unit for U.S. 
Attorneys because of the importance of legal education to DOJ's 
success. However, they did not include an outcome measure because they 
consider legal education to be a support function.

Unclear What DOJ Is Measuring in Its Fiscal Year 2005 U.S. Attorney 
Performance and Resources Tables:

As mentioned earlier, one of the President's goals for requiring 
agencies to integrate their budgets with performance information was to 
increase the value and use of program performance information in 
resource and management decisions. Although DOJ has taken steps to 
integrate budget and performance information in its fiscal year 2005 
budget submission, it is not always clear what DOJ is trying to measure 
in the fiscal year 2005 U.S. Attorney performance and resources tables.

Specifically, when analyzing the fiscal year 2005 U.S. Attorney 
congressional budget submission, we observed that for one of the two 
program activities under the criminal decision unit, DOJ used data on 
defendants--"total defendants terminated"[Footnote 21] and guilty--to 
show year-to-year changes in the level of U.S. Attorney activity. 
Categorized as performance measures, these data showed numbers for the 
total "defendants terminated" and defendants found guilty in fiscal 
years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Excerpted from the fiscal year 2005 U.S. 
Attorney congressional budget submission, table 4 shows how DOJ 
presented the defendant-related data for the program activity--violent 
crime, drug trafficking, and white-collar crime.

Table 4: Excerpt of U.S. Attorneys Congressional Budget Submission for 
Program Activity: Violent Crime, Drug Trafficking, and White-Collar 
Crime Showing Relationship between U.S. Attorney Defendant-Related 
Activities and Projected and Requested Budgetary Increases:

Dollars in thousands.

Program activity[A] --violent crime, drug trafficking, and white-collar 
crime; 
Planned (fiscal year 2003 actual): FTE[B]: 8,208; 
Planned (fiscal year 2003 actual): Dollars: $1,089,087; 
Projected (2004 appropriation with recissions): FTE[B]: 8,583; 
Projected (2004 appropriation with recissions): Dollars: $1,114,848; 
Requested (total 2005 request): FTE[B]: 8,694; 
Requested (total 2005 request): Dollars: $1,126,523.

Performance measures: Total defendants terminated; 
Planned (fiscal year 2003 actual): Dollars: $75,189; 
Projected (2004 appropriation with recissions): Dollars: $78,718; 
Requested (total 2005 request): Dollars: $79,733.

Performance measures: Total defendants guilty; 
Planned (fiscal year 2003 actual): Dollars: $68,960; 
Projected (2004 appropriation with recissions): Dollars: $72,105; 
Requested (total 2005 request): Dollars: $73,075.

Outcome: Percentage of cases favorably resolved; 
Planned (fiscal year 2003 actual): Dollars: $91.7%; 
Projected (2004 appropriation with recissions): Dollars: $91.6%; 
Requested (total 2005 request): Dollars: $91.6%. 

Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys 
Congressional Budget Submission.

[A] Program activity in this table refers to program activities as 
related DOJ's Strategic Goals and Objectives.

[B] Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to 
prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of 
FTE employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing 
the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of 
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number 
of compensable days in the fiscal year.

[End of table]

We observed that for the program activity violent crime, drug 
trafficking, and white-collar crimes, DOJ calculated its outcome 
measure--percentage of cases favorably resolved--using data on 
defendants. However, DOJ failed to explain that the number of cases can 
differ from the number of defendants, because an individual case can 
have multiple defendants. Specifically, our analysis of the tables 
showed that, for each of the 3 years covered by the congressional 
budget submission, DOJ used the number of defendants guilty divided by 
defendants terminated--the rate of conviction[Footnote 22]---to 
calculate the percentage of cases actually or expected to be favorably 
resolved. For example, for fiscal year 2003, total defendants guilty 
(68,960) divided by total defendants terminated (75,189) equals 91.7 
percent, the same percentage as that reported for cases favorably 
resolved. For fiscal year 2005, total defendants guilty (73,075) 
divided by total defendants terminated (79,733) equaled 91.6 percent, 
the same number reported as the expected percentage of cases favorably 
resolved for that fiscal year.

JMD and EOUSA budget officials confirmed that for the U.S. Attorneys' 
criminal decision unit program activities, the target percentage for 
the outcome measure--percentage of cases favorably resolved--was based 
on historical data on defendants (the conviction rate) but that a 
precise relationship did not necessarily exist between defendants and 
cases. For example, they said that in cases with multiple defendants, 
the case outcome would still be categorized as favorable when some, but 
not all, defendants were convicted. These officials also said that, in 
the future, JMD and EOUSA would likely consider using a less precise 
percentage for the U.S. Attorney's outcome measure in order to avoid 
confusion about the relationship between cases and defendants.

The JMD and EOUSA officials emphasized that the outcome measure--
percentage of cases favorably resolved--was used to enable all DOJ's 
litigating components to use a single outcome measure. They further 
explained that while all the litigating units were using a single 
outcome measure, the data currently used by each component were not 
standardized and, therefore, each component might have used different 
data to establish its performance targets. For example, while U.S. 
Attorneys used conviction data for its violent crime, drug trafficking, 
and white-collar crime program activity to determine percentage of 
cases favorably resolved, on the civil side, they used data on 
settlements and judgments in favor of the United States to determine 
the percentage of cases favorably resolved.

We also asked these officials whether the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 
data on total defendants terminated and guilty, as presented in the 
tables, were performance targets. They said that these data were not 
targets to be achieved, but were presented in this format only for 
budgetary purposes to indicate actual or expected activity based on 
budgetary increases requested. They said that in future budgets DOJ 
would clarify that data on defendants were not to be considered as 
targets. They further indicated that in the future the congressional 
budget submission presentation would likely be changed and "cleaned up" 
as DOJ gained more experience.

EOUSA is Considering Other Ways to Measure Results of U.S. Attorneys 
Offices' Activities:

EOUSA is considering other ways to address performance measurement 
issues and establish results oriented performance measures for U.S. 
Attorneys Offices. According to EOUSA officials, these efforts are 
intended to bring EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys in line with DOJ's overall 
efforts to integrate performance and the budget and advance performance 
measurement within DOJ. EOUSA's initiatives are summarized as follows:

* Performance Measurement for Budget and Performance Integration: EOUSA 
has taken initial steps to develop performance measures that can link 
the activities of U.S. Attorneys offices to the budget. Specifically, 
as of September 2003, EOUSA had begun the process for engaging a 
contractor to provide technical assistance in developing performance 
measures for U.S. Attorneys Offices and their activities. EOUSA's 
statement of work, dated April 2003, called for the development of 
performance measures for individual U.S. Attorneys Offices and an 
overall national "roll-up" measure, based on the individual measures, 
for use by EOUSA as input to DOJ's Performance Plan and Report. 
According to EOUSA, this initiative should assist in the development of 
an overall plan to enhance performance and accountability in U.S 
Attorneys Offices and also help EOUSA develop measures that are linked 
to DOJ's overall ongoing efforts to measure performance. In February 
2004, the EOUSA Deputy Director told us that EOUSA may not have the 
resources to award the contract in fiscal year 2004.

* Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement in U.S. Attorney 
Districts: According to EOUSA, some U.S. Attorneys Offices have 
developed, or are developing, strategic plans, and EOUSA is considering 
how one office's efforts to do strategic planning and performance 
measurement might be used in other districts. Specifically, EOUSA, 
working with the Western District of Washington, has begun to examine 
how strategic planning and associated performance measures developed by 
that district could be applied to other U.S. Attorneys Offices. During 
the latter part of 2002, the U.S. Attorneys Office, with funding from 
EOUSA, hired a strategic planning consultant to assist the Western 
District of Washington in piloting a community strategy 
process.[Footnote 23] As of May 2003, the District had completed a 
strategic plan, which included strategic goals and strategies, but it 
had not developed specific indicators and targets in support of the 
strategy. In addition, information provided by EOUSA in September and 
November 2003 also indicated that two other districts--the Western 
District of Michigan and the Eastern District of Kentucky--had, in 
recent years, developed strategic plans containing strategic goals and 
objectives. According to EOUSA officials, the Western District of 
Washington was awaiting funds from EOUSA in order to continue the 
district's strategic planning effort, but EOUSA may not have the funds 
to support the effort and the district may have to provide its own 
funding.

* Project Safe Neighborhoods: U.S. Attorneys Offices are also working 
with local communities to develop performance measures related to 
reducing gun crime through a multiyear DOJ commitment, called Project 
Safe Neighborhoods (PSN). PSN requires each U.S. Attorneys Office to 
support, promote, and implement a comprehensive gun violence reduction 
program within each local district. It includes establishing a 
communitywide strategic plan to combat gun violence and awarding 
research grants in each district to measure the impact of PSN in 
reducing gun violence. DOJ is currently, working with the Michigan 
State University to examine how data gathered in each district can be 
used to measure performance in combating gun crime.

* EOUSA's Strategic Planning And Performance Measurement: EOUSA has 
also developed its own strategic plan, which establishes 5 strategic 
goals and articulates strategies and activities for accomplishing those 
goals. Among other things, the plan calls for the development of 
performance measures for some goals. For example, one of EOUSA's 
strategic goals (strategic goal 4) was to satisfy the current emerging 
budgetary and financial management needs of EOUSA and the U.S. 
Attorneys Offices. Under this goal, EOUSA budget staff responsible for 
working with other DOJ components on budget and performance measurement 
issues were to implement a performance measures pilot project to 
develop outcome-based measures for three top-priority areas--
counterterrorism, gun crimes, and corporate fraud.

[End of section]

Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S. 
Attorneys Offices Is Evolving:

The Department of Justice's (DOJ) approach to monitoring the 
performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices is evolving. In November 2001, 
the Deputy Attorney General announced a plan to improve DOJ's ability 
to assess U.S. Attorneys' efforts to address the Attorney General's 
priorities and meet management and performance expectations. One aspect 
of the plan was the enhancement of U.S. Attorneys long-standing 
internal evaluation program, Evaluation and Review Staff evaluations--
called EARS evaluations---to increase its effectiveness as a management 
tool.[Footnote 24] A second component of the plan was to communicate to 
U.S. Attorneys the information necessary to support DOJ's priorities 
and implement sound management. A third and related aspect of the plan 
was the introduction of a new process for collecting and analyzing 
information to assess each U.S. Attorneys' Office progress toward 
addressing priorities and meeting the performance expectations of the 
Attorney General. At the time of our review, DOJ had implemented some, 
but not all, of its planned steps to enhance its ability to assess the 
performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices and these efforts continue to 
evolve.

EOUSA Has Begun to Change Internal Reviews to Emphasize Performance and 
Management Issues, but Changes Are Not Complete:

In response to the Deputy Attorney General's management plan, the 
Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) has begun to make 
changes to its internal evaluation program--otherwise known as EARS 
reviews--that are intended to enhance DOJ's ability to assess the 
performance and management of U.S. Attorneys Offices. These changes 
focus on such topics as strategic planning, senior management 
operations, relations with law enforcement and the judiciary, case and 
personnel management, and DOJ's priority programs (e.g., antiterrorism, 
violent crimes and drugs, and civil rights prosecutions). During our 
review, EOUSA had not yet completed making all of the changes announced 
by the Deputy Attorney General.

Under 28 C.F.R. Part 0.22, EOUSA is to evaluate the performance of the 
U.S. Attorneys Offices, make appropriate reports, and take corrective 
actions if necessary. EOUSA's EARS staff is responsible for the ongoing 
evaluation program. According to EOUSA, the EARS program is an internal 
review program designed, among other things, to examine management 
controls and prevent waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation 
in federal programs, as required under the Federal Managers Financial 
Integrity Act.[Footnote 25] EARS evaluations are conducted in each of 
the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices every 3 years by teams of experienced 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and administrative and financial litigation 
personnel from other U.S. Attorneys Offices.

In a November 2001 memorandum that outlined DOJ's plans to enhance its 
ability to assess the performance of U.S. Attorney's Offices, the 
Deputy Attorney General noted that EARS evaluations had effectively 
diagnosed the strengths and weaknesses of each office, but they had 
been underutilized as a management tool. He stated that he, therefore, 
would direct EOUSA to redesign EARS to, among other things,

* focus more attention on "critical areas of management and 
performance;" 

* institute a "red flag" system for identifying and reacting to 
particularly vexing issues identified during evaluations whereby senior 
EOUSA officials and/or Assistant U.S. Attorneys who are experts in 
specific areas would provide quick assistance and support to the 
district under evaluation; and:

* establish management consulting as a primary responsibility of the 
EARS staff who, up to that time, had been primarily occupied with 
evaluations and their follow-up and had little time to provide advice 
and assistance to U.S. Attorneys.

As of February 2004, EOUSA had not, however, completed its redesign of 
the EARS evaluation program. Consequently, we were unable to fully 
assess how the redesign is likely to affect EOUSA's ability to evaluate 
the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices. Key elements of the 
redesigned EARS have not been implemented. For example, as of February 
2004, EOUSA had not put into operation the "red flag" program for its 
legal evaluations. As part of the management consulting program called 
for by the Deputy Attorney General, EOUSA officials said that some 
"road shows" had been developed to provide specialized on-site training 
sessions on various management issues for individual U.S. Attorneys 
Offices and some informal consulting with offices was taking place, but 
EOUSA was still working on more refined management training for 
supervisory U.S. Attorneys.

Furthermore, according to EOUSA officials, using the new evaluation 
guidelines, EARS staff had completed the fiscal year 2003 evaluation 
cycle begun in October 2002 for some, but not all, of the U.S. 
Attorneys Offices to be reviewed in 2003 and had begun some reviews for 
the fiscal year 2004 offices. However, as of February 2004, the final 
reports for the completed reviews were not available. For the fiscal 
year 2003 reviews, EOUSA used an updated manual to train evaluators 
that includes the changes made to the evaluation program thus far. Our 
comparison of this newly revised training manual with the old manual 
showed that the EARS guidance has been revised to provide greater focus 
on assessing steps each office is taking in regard to results oriented 
management, such as strategic planning and performance measurement. For 
example, one of EOUSA's key changes involved a redesign of the EARS 
pre-evaluation survey, which, according to EOUSA, is to be completed by 
each district a few weeks before that district's evaluation is to 
begin. Specifically, in January 2003, EOUSA replaced the EARS "District 
Self Evaluation Survey" (DSES)--first used in 1997--with its new "USAO 
Management Survey." Our comparison of the two surveys showed that both 
were designed to prompt each district targeted for evaluation to 
describe various aspects of its operations. However, the new Management 
Survey was also designed to prompt each district to provide more 
descriptive information on various matters, including senior management 
efforts to plan, develop budgets, and establish policies and 
procedures. In addition, the Management Survey also prompts districts 
to provide descriptive information not covered in the DSES, including 
information on strategic planning and what the district is doing to 
measure its performance and results in its litigation of criminal or 
civil cases.

Our comparison of DSES and the Management Survey also showed that both 
prompted districts to provide information on their management structure 
and prompted them to discuss the background, duties, and 
responsibilities of district managers, such as the First Assistant U.S. 
Attorney and other executive-level Supervisory Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys. However, in contrast to the DSES, the Management Survey also 
prompts the district to, among other things, describe how:

* the U.S. Attorneys Office senior management team sets long-term goals 
and objectives, translates those into resources, budgets, and programs; 
and monitors and measures performance and productivity and:

* the U.S. Attorneys Office senior management team motivates the U.S. 
Attorneys Office attorney and support staff to effectively implement 
the U.S. Attorneys Office's long-term goals and objectives, budgets and 
programs, and policies and procedures, and to develop and sustain high 
levels of performance.

Whereas DSES contained a section asking districts to list and discuss 
their priorities, the new management survey asks districts to describe 
the crime problem that influences the U.S. Attorneys Office's response 
to DOJ's strategic goals and objectives and the district priorities. 
Furthermore, under the new survey, districts are asked to respond to 
particular questions about strategic plans and district priorities and 
efforts to measure results related to those initiatives. Specifically, 
the Management Survey asks the district to, among other things, 
describe,

* how the U.S. Attorneys Office has addressed DOJ's strategic plan;

* any other prosecutorial, civil, or outreach priorities in the 
district and how the U.S. Attorneys Office is addressing them;

* any specific target or performance standards used by the U.S. 
Attorneys Office to measure its initiatives, any performance goals or 
indicators that have been established to reflect results rather than 
workload or processes, and any criteria in place to measure the 
performance and results in the U.S. Attorney's Office litigation of 
criminal cases or civil cases; and:

* how performance standards for criminal and civil litigation are used 
to review the Office's overall civil and criminal caseload, set 
priorities and goals, and evaluate Assistant U.S. Attorney performance.

We also noted that, consistent with the Management Survey, EARS 
guidance for conducting evaluations has been revised to now include a 
section entitled "Strategic Plan and District Priorities." 
Specifically, under the new EARS guidelines, evaluators are asked to 
interview key U.S. Attorney managers about various aspects of U.S. 
Attorney operations, including strategic planning and priority issues. 
To illustrate, the Interview Guide for the First Assistant U.S. 
Attorney and Other Executive Level Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
includes a section entitled "Strategic Plan and District Priorities" 
that asks officials to respond to or discuss the following:

* Discuss the district's priorities and any unique factors affecting 
the district.

* Do you feel that there should be any changes to the quality or 
quantity or priority of the cases handled by the U.S. Attorney's 
Office?

* Are there any special programs or initiatives that are affecting the 
workload or allocation of resources in the U.S. Attorney's Office? Are 
there any issues relating to any special programs or initiatives?

In February 2004, EOUSA officials told us that they had made some 
additional changes to the manual during fiscal year 2003 and that this 
process was continuing in fiscal year 2004. In addition, officials said 
that in order to link EARS with strategic planning, they would have to 
look at the needs of U.S. Attorneys Offices and available resources.

DOJ's Strategic Plan Used as a Framework for Communicating Priorities 
and Expectations to U.S. Attorneys Offices:

Another component of the Deputy Attorney General's management plan 
emphasized DOJ's commitment to communicate the Attorney General's 
priorities and expectations to U.S. Attorneys and their management 
teams. DOJ used its Strategic Plan as a framework for communicating 
DOJ's goals and objectives to U.S. Attorneys Offices. However, in 
February 2004, because recent and pending changes to DOJ's strategic 
and performance planning, DOJ officials said that they may have to 
develop other vehicles to use in their discussions with U.S. Attorneys 
Offices about their respective plans, strategies, and targets.

According to the September 24, 2003, letter we received from EOUSA's 
Director, the Attorney General established DOJ's priorities through the 
fiscal year 2001 through 2006 strategic plan and, as discussed earlier, 
U.S. Attorneys have a direct role and responsibility in at least 6 of 
the 8 established goals. In addition, through meetings, conferences, e-
mails, and other media, the Attorney General has articulated four 
national priorities for U.S. Attorneys that are directly linked to 
DOJ's strategic plan--antiterrorism under DOJ strategic goal I; 
reduction in gun violence under strategic goal II; reduction of the 
supply and demand for illegal drugs under strategic goal II and III; 
and enforcement of civil rights under strategic goal IV.

In his letter to us, EOUSA's Director confirmed that U.S. Attorneys 
have a direct role and responsibility in at least 6 of the 8 strategic 
goals and said that the Attorney General had taken several 
opportunities to communicate DOJ's strategic goals and objectives to 
U.S. Attorney's Offices. In November 2001, for example, EOUSA 
transmitted to U.S. Attorneys Offices a memorandum from the Attorney 
General to all of DOJ concerning the restructuring of DOJ to better 
meet the threat of terrorism. The memorandum also discussed the 
issuance of DOJ's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006. 
Also, in December 2002, EOUSA's Director issued a memorandum to all 
U.S. Attorneys, First Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and all Administrative 
Officers notifying them of how they could access DOJ's Strategic Plan 
on DOJ's Web site.

In addition to DOJ's performance goals and measures, EOUSA's Director 
told us that individual U.S. Attorneys Offices may establish 
performance goals and measures in each office, which could vary 
considerably from district to district and even within a district. He 
said that a district that has different branch offices could have goals 
that vary from branch to branch. However, the Director said that 
because many districts do not formalize strategic and performance 
plans--and are not required to--it was difficult to provide examples. 
Further, he added that this is not to say that U.S. Attorneys do not 
set priorities within their offices, devote resources to those 
priorities, and expect certain results.

Because of recent and pending changes to strategic and performance 
planning in DOJ, we asked JMD and EOUSA officials how EOUSA would 
communicate DOJ's strategic goals and objectives to U.S. Attorneys. 
They told us that they may have to develop new vehicles for these 
discussions, although they also noted that the performance measures for 
U.S. Attorneys would still be in the DOJ Strategic Plan and the DOJ 
congressional budget submission.

DOJ Has Communicated Its Goals and Objectives to Supervisory U.S. 
Attorneys:

Our survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys in January and 
February 2003 indicated that DOJ had communicated its national 
performance goals to them. Specifically, nearly 90 percent (469 of 526) 
of the respondents to our survey indicated that they had received 
information about performance goals from DOJ through at least one of a 
variety of ways, including hardcopy, e-mails, oral and video briefings, 
and the Internet.

In addition, responses to our survey also indicated that, as of early 
2003, some U.S. Attorneys Offices had established and communicated 
local goals and measures to their supervisory staff. Specifically, 77 
percent (363 of the 470) of the Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
who responded to this question said that their districts had 
established district level performance goals and measures. Furthermore, 
about 83 percent of these supervisors (297 of 360 respondents) stated 
that the cases handled by their unit to a very great or great extent 
realistically reflected the district level performance goals and 
measures established by the U.S. Attorneys Office.[Footnote 26]

Appendix VIII summarizes the results of our survey of Supervisory 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys. To view our survey and supervisors' 
responses, go to http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-04-616sp.

DOJ Has Initiated, but Not Fully Implemented, a New Process to Assess 
U.S. Attorneys Offices Performance:

DOJ has also begun to implement a new process for collecting and 
analyzing information about U.S. Attorneys Offices efforts to meet 
DOJ's priorities and expectations. We were unable to fully examine 
DOJ's efforts to assess performance using its new process because DOJ 
had not fully implemented the process. In addition, the information 
requested from U.S. Attorneys Offices continues to evolve.

According to the Deputy Attorney General's November 2001 announcement, 
to provide DOJ with the means of assessing the progress of each U.S. 
Attorney's office to meet the Attorney General's objectives, DOJ would:

* require that each U.S. Attorneys Office submit a performance report 
that contains "qualitative and quantitative measures" detailing, among 
other things, its progress on the prosecutive priorities of the 
administration during calendar year 2002 and:

* assess each office as of January 1, 2003, based on the performance 
reports, caseload data from the centralized case management system; 
reports of consultations with investigating agency field offices and 
the judiciary; and the most significant finding from recent EARS 
evaluations.

In September 2002, the Deputy Attorney General issued a memorandum to 
U.S. Attorneys Offices instructing them on how to prepare the 
performance reports he had discussed in his November 2001 memorandum. 
The September 2002 memorandum discussed strategic goals and objectives 
related to the Attorney General's four top prosecutive priorities--
antiterrorism, gun violence reduction, drugs, and civil rights and 
identified an additional priority--corporate fraud--to which U.S. 
Attorneys had been asked to pay particular attention.

For each of the five priorities, the memorandum asked each office to 
respond to a question or a series of questions that were primarily 
focused on discussing the steps each Office had taken to accomplish 
DOJ's prosecutorial goals and objectives. For example, regarding 
antiterrorism, the Deputy Attorney General stated that DOJ's objectives 
were to:

"Prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur; 
develop and implement the full range of resources available to 
investigate terrorist incidents, bringing their perpetrators to 
justice; vigorously prosecute those who have committed, or intend to 
commit, terrorist acts in the United States."

The memorandum asked each U.S. Attorneys Office to describe the 
district's plan for accomplishing the three antiterrorism objectives, 
what had been done to apply these objectives in the district, what had 
been accomplished, and what obstacles remained. In addition, each 
office was asked to consider, among other things:

* What is the current status of your district's Anti-Terrorism Task 
Force (ATTF)?[Footnote 27]

* If you have a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)[Footnote 28] in your 
district, how is it coordinating with the ATTF and what is your 
office's involvement in JTTF?

* What steps have been taken to improve information sharing?

* Have antiterrorism cases been developed in your district? Describe.

The Deputy Attorney General's memorandum asked each district to provide 
information for each of the three other priorities, as well as for 
corporate fraud. In addition, the Deputy Attorney General asked U.S. 
Attorneys Offices to:

* identify any other priorities in their district and discuss why and 
how these priorities were established; the objectives selected to 
accomplish these priorities; the steps taken to implement the 
objectives; any outcomes realized; and any obstacles that remain; and:

* assess the Office's strengths and weaknesses by answering questions 
about a variety of topics, including the quality of work; productivity; 
morale; and partnerships with others, including the "bench" and local 
investigative agencies.

In April 2003, we reviewed the reports and EOUSA summaries of the 
reports for each of the 10 Offices we had visited and, in particular, 
examined whether the 10 Offices had begun to use quantifiable results-
oriented measures as a way of developing their performance reports. Our 
analysis showed that each report was informative about what the 10 U.S. 
Attorney's Offices were doing to address the Attorney General's 
priorities, district priorities, and management issues, but--as 
requested by DOJ--the 10 U.S. Attorneys Offices generally used 
anecdotal information about their successes on particular cases to 
demonstrate results rather than quantifiable measures that would 
indicate their progress in achieving the Attorney General's and 
district priorities.

For example, all of the 10 Offices discussed their efforts regarding 
the Attorney General's antiterrorism priorities, including their 
involvement in ATTFs; efforts to share information among local, state, 
and federal task force members; and some of the obstacles they faced in 
meeting antiterrorism objectives. Likewise, the 10 reports discussed 
efforts related to drugs, civil rights, Project Safe Neighborhoods 
(PSN), and corporate fraud. Some provided case examples to show their 
efforts in these areas and discussed some of the barriers they faced in 
carrying out the Attorney General's priorities. Regarding the latter, 3 
of the 10 reports noted that they were hampered in their ability to 
deal with corporate fraud cases because FBI resources had been shifted 
to counter-terrorism activities, and one of these districts reported 
that the lack of FBI resources hampered its efforts in the area of 
civil rights.

In addition, the 10 Offices generally discussed their local priorities 
and what they were doing in those areas. For example, 1 report 
discussed 13 areas--ranging from cybercrime to environmental crime to 
health care fraud--that the Office was pursuing; discussed the reasons 
the district was pursuing them; and described some cases related to 
those areas. Another Office described its efforts in four areas---
public corruption, illegal immigration, violent crime, and white-collar 
fraud--while still another discussed its efforts in regard to three 
priorities--mortgage fraud, health care fraud, and crimes against 
children. Finally, each of the 10 reports discussed a variety of 
management issues, including district efforts to reorganize, manage 
information technology and case data, review cases and hold staff 
accountable, enhance productivity, recruit candidates, train staff, and 
garner feedback from client agencies and the judiciary.

EOUSA provided worksheets that showed, among other things, the 
scorecard criteria they planned to use to assess the reports on each of 
the four priorities, and three other areas--corporate fraud, 
management, and "intangibles." EOUSA officials were to make their 
assessments based on a 5-point scale--tailored to each of the four 
priorities and the three other areas--with a score of "5" reserved for 
reports sections that "went beyond the guidelines" and a "one" reserved 
for "recites the question, little else," or in the case of 
"intangibles," "report contains no meaningful information." EOUSA's 
guidance did not instruct officials to examine whether districts had 
developed performance measures. However, EOUSA suggested that officials 
evaluate the reports based on a variety of topics, including any 
information on caseload statistics being a good gauge of office 
productivity as well as anything that could be a potential best 
practice.

Although, according to the November 2001 memorandum, the performance 
reporting process was intended to assess performance-based on 
qualitative and quantitative measures, EOUSA's Director, in his 
September 24, 2003, letter to us, indicated that the objective of the 
process was to provide a management tool for districts. He said it was 
not designed to "have them in the business of forecasting and setting 
expectations and predictions for prosecutions like a corporation would 
forecast sales and productivity of goods and services." The Director 
went on to state that:

"Because of the numerous variables outside of the control of the USAOs 
and because our organization's success should not be measured by pure 
numbers of prosecutions, our goals are more qualitative, such as making 
a difference in the community and coordinating efforts among multiple 
law enforcement agencies."

However, EOUSA's Director also said that throughout the performance 
reporting process and analysis of reports, EOUSA has developed many 
ideas for improving the process and ensuring it provides the 
information it needs, while not overburdening districts. He said there 
are plans to make the performance reporting guide more user friendly 
and to provide additional information not captured the first time.

According to EOUSA, as of February 2004, the new template for the 2003 
performance reports was still under review, and EOUSA expected that, in 
the coming weeks, the new template would be sent out to the U.S. 
Attorney districts for completion. We compared the draft template EOUSA 
plans to use to collect 2003 performance information with the 2002 
version of the template and found that the latest iteration identified 
the same priorities as the previous template. In addition, for some 
priorities, for example, corporate fraud/white-collar crime, EOUSA 
added new, more specific, and targeted questions, including some 
requiring quantifiable responses. However, EOUSA told us that it may be 
difficult to develop a quantitative measure because the factors 
affecting the development of performance measures vary from office to 
office, depending on the local situation. For example, the type and 
character of cases prosecuted may vary among U.S. Attorneys, depending 
on differences in state laws and whether or not cases can be prosecuted 
by the state. Officials also said that they are in the process of 
creating links between the performance reports and EARS so that EARS 
evaluators can benefit from the information in the performance reports, 
as these reports are part of the pre-evaluation materials that EARS 
evaluators use.

[End of section]

Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to Move Toward 
Strategic Human Capital Management:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Executive Office for United 
States Attorneys (EOUSA) have begun to take steps intended to integrate 
performance-based strategic human capital management into the day-to-
day operations of EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys Offices. For example, DOJ 
has developed a Human Capital Strategic Plan that includes personnel in 
U.S. Attorneys Offices and is linked to DOJ's Strategic Plan. However, 
DOJ faces additional human capital challenges, such as attracting, 
training, and retaining sufficiently qualified employees in many areas 
of its operation. DOJ officials told us they were continuing to address 
these challenges. In addition to DOJ's efforts, EOUSA has taken 
preliminary steps to develop its own Human Capital Strategic Plan that 
is to be linked to the DOJ Strategic Plan and is exploring other 
actions to enhance its human capital management.

DOJ's Human Capital Initiatives Include U.S. Attorneys Offices:

In September 2002, DOJ published a Human Capital Strategic Plan that 
covered all of DOJ, including EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys Offices. 
According to DOJ, the goals of the Human Capital Strategic Plan, which 
was to support DOJ's Strategic Plan, were to (1) identify and document 
DOJ's human capital accomplishments and (2) design and implement a plan 
to eliminate gaps in DOJ's human capital management. DOJ stated that, 
among other things, the plan was designed to describe the framework DOJ 
was developing to meet its unique human capital needs and cover DOJ 
personnel in law enforcement, legal, and administrative occupational 
categories. [Footnote 29] Regarding the legal field, DOJ's Human 
Capital Strategic Plan stated that DOJ had over 7,500 attorneys and 
more than 1,300 paralegal specialists across the United States, and the 
largest portion of these were affiliated with U.S. Attorneys in each of 
the 94 districts.[Footnote 30]

In its plan, DOJ reported that it had already experienced significant 
success in managing its human capital. According to DOJ's plan, among 
other things, DOJ (1) was viewed by applicants as having highly 
desirable job opportunities, especially as agents with the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) or as Assistant U.S. Attorneys, (2) had well-established, 
excellent training programs for new law enforcement and legal job 
entrants; (3) had projected low annual retirement rates--the actual 
retirement rate for 2001 was one-third less than projected; (4) had 
tested and implemented an electronic training strategy, in addition to 
several components having tested and implemented electronic hiring 
systems; and (5) had an extensive data bank on job competencies needed 
for all its occupations.[Footnote 31]

DOJ also reported that, based on guidance provided by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), GAO, 
and the National Academy of Public Administration, and consistent with 
the administration's Human Capital Initiative, it had identified 4 
goals and related objectives that would help it eliminate gaps in human 
capital management. Table 5 shows DOJ's Human Capital Strategic Goals 
and Objectives.

Table 5: DOJ's Human Capital Strategic Goals and Objectives:

DOJ human capital goal: Human capital goal 1 --Design an effective 
organization and workforce that aligns with the overall DOJ mission and 
Strategic Plan; 

DOJ human capital objectives: 1. Ensure the human capital objectives 
align with the DOJ Strategic Plans and Annual Performance Plans.

DOJ human capital objectives: 2. Monitor and report on organizational 
reforms in DOJ components.

DOJ human capital objectives: 3. Redirect DOJ resources to primary 
missions (e.g., counterterrorism, drug enforcement, and detention/
incarceration) and shift resources to the "front lines."

DOJ human capital objectives: 4. Expand the use of contractors to 
perform commercial activities where it improves efficiency and economy.

DOJ human capital objectives: 5. Develop a workforce analysis and 
planning model to be applied across DOJ.

DOJ human capital goal: Human capital goal 2 --Reduce skill gaps 
through recruitment, training, and succession planning; 

DOJ human capital objectives: 1. Develop and implement a DOJ-wide 
recruitment strategy.

DOJ human capital objectives: 2. Implement continuous process 
improvement for recruitment and hiring activities and ensure that the 
hiring process is streamlined as possible.

DOJ human capital objectives: 3. Ensure that hiring is automated across 
DOJ to the greatest extent possible.

DOJ human capital objectives: 4. Analyze the background investigation 
process, and modify as needed.

DOJ human capital objectives: 5. Conduct a study of flexible/
alternative pay programs at DOJ and other federal organizations.

DOJ human capital objectives: 6. Document and continue to build on 
DOJ's workforce development strategy and address any training gaps or 
issues identified.

DOJ human capital goal: Human capital goal 3 --Develop an 
organizational culture focused on performance and results; 

DOJ human capital objectives: 1. Develop a performance management model 
at the DOJ level that "cascades" strategic goals to front-line 
employees, and design an implementation strategy that includes 
communication and training.

DOJ human capital objectives: 2. Advance the state of information 
sharing and communication at DOJ, and identify and adopt new methods to 
automate the HR processes to improve access.

DOJ human capital objectives: 3. Strengthen the values of worklife 
programs and assess how directly they are linked to attrition reduction 
and mission accomplishment.

DOJ human capital goal: Human capital goal 4 --Strengthen human 
capital leadership at DOJ; 

DOJ human capital objectives: 1. Identify, document, and improve the 
nature, content, and level of DOJ employee participation in leadership 
development programs, including the extent of such programs at the 
component level.

DOJ human capital objectives: 2. Restructure management of DOJ's 
Senior Executive Service corps. 

Source: U.S. Department of Justice Human Capital Strategic Plan, 
September 2002.

[End of table]

Since publishing its Human Capital Strategic Plan, DOJ's Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) and OMB have identified DOJ's management of its 
human capital as a challenge facing DOJ. For example, in November 2002 
and November 2003, the OIG listed human capital as one of the top 10 
challenges facing DOJ and, among other things, discussed DOJ's ability 
to attract, train, and retain sufficiently qualified employees in many 
areas of operation. In addition, as part of its analysis of agency 
progress toward implementing the human capital initiative outlined in 
the President's Management Agenda, OMB gave DOJ a score of green for 
progress--meaning that DOJ's implementation of the human capital 
initiative was proceeding according to plans. DOJ received this score, 
because, among other things, it had drafted a human capital 
implementation plan that outlined action items along with target dates 
and responsible staff to support each of the plan's objectives. 
However, DOJ received a red for status--indicating that, according to 
OMB's criteria, agency efforts to meet OMB's standards regarding human 
capital planning had any number of serious flaws. In May 2004, DOJ 
officials stated that DOJ had been receiving a red score because DOJ 
has been implementing its human capital improvement efforts, but has 
not completed implementation to the point of achieving results across 
the board.

DOJ recognizes that it faces challenges and, according to DOJ's 
Director of Personnel, is working to address these issues as it 
continues to move forward. In October 2003, the Director told us that 
DOJ was making progress on its human capital initiative and identified 
a number of steps that DOJ was taking. Specifically, she said that, in 
September 2003, DOJ awarded a contract to do workforce analysis and 
planning and in October, the contractor met with component Human 
Resources Directors to walk them through how it plans to implement the 
project. In addition, since the issuance of DOJ's Fiscal Year 2002 
Performance Report & Fiscal Year 2003 Revised Final Performance Plan, 
Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan, DOJ has begun to develop a new, more 
detailed, implementation plan that will enable DOJ to more closely 
track its progress toward implementation. Moreover, she noted that DOJ 
is also in the early stages of developing a scorecard to measure 
performance for key human capital indicators. However, she indicated 
that DOJ is struggling with measuring impact.

DOJ's Personnel Director also identified employee-related human capital 
initiatives. Specifically, she said that DOJ has been working on a new 
employee performance appraisal system for General Schedule and Senior 
Executive Service Employees that will be designed to link individual 
employee performance management to objectives, measures, and results. 
In addition, DOJ has established a Business Case Committee to study 
what options are available to DOJ for improving human capital 
management outside of the pay and personnel rules under Title 5 of the 
United States Code and, according to DOJ officials, similar to human 
capital reform efforts underway at Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD).[Footnote 32] The Personnel 
Director said that the Committee was created because of concern that 
DOJ may lose some of its best people if DHS and DOD are able to develop 
personnel systems that give them greater flexibility to recruit and 
retain employees at higher rates of pay, similar to what DOJ 
experienced during the creation of the Transportation Security 
Administration.

According to the Director, EOUSA has been heavily involved in some of 
the efforts DOJ is taking to implement its human capital initiative 
departmentwide. Specifically, she said that EOUSA has participated 
fully in DOJ's policy development process to modify the DOJ employee 
performance appraisal system and has played a role on DOJ's Business 
Case Committee.

EOUSA Is Considering Its Own Human Capital Initiatives:

EOUSA is also considering ways that it can initiate strategic human 
capital planning across U.S. Attorneys Offices. EOUSA has recently 
hired a human capital manager to do strategic human capital planning 
and, among other things, explore ways to link individual performance to 
organizational performance and examine whether U.S. Attorneys Offices 
have the appropriate number of staff, with the appropriate skills, to 
meet strategic goals and objectives. In addition, EOUSA is taking other 
steps, including exploring ways to better link pay and performance to 
help U.S. Attorneys Offices retain high performing staff.

EOUSA Has Developed Plans to Implement a Human Capital Initiative:

Recognizing the need to develop its own human capital initiative, in 
his September 24, 2003, letter to us, the Director of EOUSA told us 
that EOUSA had recently hired an experienced manager to lead EOUSA's 
human capital initiative. The Director said that the decision to hire 
the human capital manager was based on an EOUSA "white paper" that 
concluded that a human capital initiative position would free up staff 
resources and provide strategic vision and planning. EOUSA's white 
paper stated that the human capital manager would report directly to 
EOUSA's Chief Operating Officer and work with all EOUSA components and 
U.S. Attorneys Offices in effecting the implementation of EOUSA's human 
capital initiative. According to EOUSA, the human capital manager 
would:

* enable EOUSA to begin collecting data related to human capital 
management, which according to EOUSA, had been the subject of many "GAO 
meetings with EOUSA concerning the human capital management objectives 
of both the Administration and the Hill;":

* assist in restructuring and suggesting creative approaches to human 
resource management--for instance, analyzing whether the organization 
could effectively employ buyouts;

* serve as the organization's liaison with other organizations, such as 
GAO, OPM, and DOJ at large in matters related to human capital; and:

* free up resources in EOUSA's Personnel Policy Division to focus on, 
among other things, U.S. Attorney District staffing issues, rather than 
Human Capital Policy, reporting, and liaison.

EOUSA also stated in its white paper that it needs to develop a human 
capital strategic plan that is linked to DOJ's Strategic Plan. 
According to the paper, the component plan must be used to set 
organizational goals, develop employee performance standards, and 
facilitate performance-related personnel decisions. In so doing, the 
white paper indicated that EOUSA needed to be able to track at least 
one performance element in each employee's performance work plan--
designed to document employee performance expectations and appraisals-
-back to a DOJ or component strategic goal. The white paper discussed 
three options for making this linkage, including one that would require 
that all EOUSA employee performance work plans have one performance 
element called "Annual Goals and Initiatives" that could be linked to 
one or more goals of the EOUSA strategic plan.

In addition, EOUSA's white paper discussed what EOUSA called strategic 
"people planning" whereby EOUSA would consider whether it had the right 
number of staff with the right skills to meet strategic goals this 
year, and for the next several years. The paper also stated that EOUSA 
should consider how the strategic goals of EOUSA's "people" 
organizations address strategic issues; whether those goals relate to 
EOUSA's efforts to meet its strategic goals and initiatives for the 
next several years; and the extent to which strategic goals reflect 
coordinated analysis of EOUSA's workforce relative to its mission. The 
white paper listed two options for implementing its people-planning 
initiative. First, EOUSA offices associated with personnel and 
management issues could coordinate their objectives for consistency. 
Second, these and other offices could "closely link short and long-
range planning activities to strategic goals and objectives." EOUSA's 
white paper did not specify how EOUSA planned to analyze whether U.S. 
Attorneys Offices had the right number of staff, with the right skills, 
to meet their strategic goals over the next year or over the next 
several years. In February 2004, EOUSA officials told us that EOUSA had 
not begun to fully implement its human capital restructuring effort 
because the human capital manager has been focusing on formulating a 
buyout initiative for EOUSA's legal assistants, legal secretaries, 
among others.[Footnote 33]

EOUSA Has Taken Other Steps to Address Strategic Human Capital 
Management:

In his September 24, 2003, letter, EOUSA's Director described other 
steps EOUSA has begun to take to address human capital issues. For 
example, the Director said that EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys are working to 
develop new management training that is expected to include course work 
on individual performance management and organizational strategic 
planning. Also, EOUSA's Director told us that EOUSA's personnel staff 
is working with the Middle District of Tennessee to develop the 
prototype for a new appraisal format that is to enhance linkage between 
performance and identified goals and objectives. EOUSA said that, under 
this initiative, the U.S. Attorney has articulated his goals and 
objectives, and his attorney management staff has begun to refine their 
performance elements and standards to clearly identify and communicate 
to their employees management's expectations to accomplish those 
objectives. In the meantime, EOUSA's Director said EOUSA staff has 
shared with the district a proposal for a new appraisal form that would 
assist them in reconstructing their performance management system. 
EOUSA's Director said that the results of this effort would be a pilot 
for revising U.S. Attorney performance management, in connection with 
DOJ's overall effort to integrate goals and objectives into employee's 
expectations and appraisal, discussed earlier.

In addition, EOUSA's Director said that EOUSA is working with an 
internal DOJ advisory subcommittee to examine possible changes to the 
U.S. Attorney pay system, with a view toward restructuring pay and 
performance systems and linking pay to performance. According to EOUSA, 
this effort, which is in the very early deliberative stages, arises out 
of concerns that (1) the existing pay scale for Supervisory Assistant 
and Assistant U.S. Attorneys are out of date and too low to compete 
with the private sector in many districts and (2) the current 
performance rating system does not give U.S. Attorneys enough 
flexibility to provide larger pay increases to distinguish more 
precisely among varying levels of performance. Regarding the latter, 
the subcommittee is exploring whether a change in the existing 
performance rating system could give U.S. Attorneys greater leverage to 
retain talented, experienced attorneys in light of "increasing demands 
on all U.S. Attorneys Offices."

In our survey of over 750 Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys during 
January and February 2003, we addressed the question of whether 
retaining experienced attorneys may be an issue facing EOUSA and U.S. 
Attorneys in the future. Our survey results showed that about 68 
percent of respondents who had supervised a unit for at least 2 years 
indicated that there had been attrition among Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
they had supervised during that time period. About 53 percent of 
respondents said they had either too few or far too few Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys working in their unit, given the workload over the last 6 
months of 2002. When asked the extent to which they anticipated a 
shortage of Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the next 3 years as a result of 
increased unit workload, about 64 percent of responding supervisors 
answered to at least a moderate extent. Approximately 35 percent 
answered this way when asked if attrition would cause the shortage.

Appendix VIII summarizes the results of our survey of Supervisory 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys. To view our survey and supervisors' 
responses, go to http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-04-616sp.

[End of section]

Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO's Survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys about Various Management Issues:

Using a Web-based questionnaire, we surveyed all Supervisory Assistant 
U.S. Attorneys in all 94 federal judicial districts between January 8, 
2003, and February 28, 2003. We sent this survey to 768 supervisors and 
received 532 responses--an approximate 70 percent response rate. The 
results of our survey are applicable only to the supervisors who 
responded and are not generalizable to all U.S. Attorney Office 
supervisors nationwide. Accordingly, the response results for 
individual questions are applicable only to the supervisors who had 
opinions and provided answers. We developed a series of questions to 
obtain supervisors' views on various topics, including performance 
goals and measures; supervisory monitoring of cases and matters handled 
by Assistant U.S. Attorneys; individual performance evaluations; 
Assistant U.S. Attorney staffing and attrition; administrative 
(nonattorney) staff support; and training.[Footnote 34]

Please note that in the following discussion of survey results, we 
always refer to Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys who had an opinion 
and responded to a particular question. For any question, the survey 
respondent has the option of answering the question, indicating "No 
basis to judge," or not answering the question at all. In other cases, 
a respondent may be instructed to skip one or more questions depending 
on how they answered a prior question. Because of this, the actual 
number of respondents fluctuates slightly for each question. In most 
cases, relatively small numbers of Supervisory Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys' responses were excluded from the analysis of specific 
questions.

The following highlights supervisors' responses to questions covering 
key issues addressed in our survey. To view our survey and supervisors' 
responses, go to http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-04-616sp.

Performance Goals and Measures:

The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
responded to various questions about DOJ performance goals and district 
goals and measures.[Footnote 35]

* National performance goals--Nearly 90 percent of the respondents 
indicated that they received information about the national performance 
goals from DOJ through at least one of a variety of ways, which 
included hardcopy, e-mails, oral and video briefings, the Internet, as 
well as other means. Only about 10 percent said the goals had not been 
communicated to their unit.

* District performance goals and measures--About 77 percent of the 470 
supervisors answering the question indicated that their U.S. Attorneys 
Office had established district level performance goals and measures, 
while about 23 percent said that their offices did not establish these 
goals and measures.

* Approximately 83 percent of those who said their U.S. Attorneys 
Office had established district level performance goals and measures 
answered to a very great or great extent that the cases handled by 
their unit realistically reflected the district level performance goals 
and measures established by the U.S. Attorneys Office.

* About 87 percent of respondents did not feel changes were needed in 
establishing district level strategic objectives, performance goals, 
and performance measures in their U.S. Attorneys Office.

Monitoring Cases and Matters:

The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
responded to questions about how they monitored the progress of cases 
and matters assigned to the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their units.

* Progress--The majority of supervisors who responded said that they 
use a variety of ways to monitor the progress of cases or matters 
assigned to the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their unit. For example, 
over 87 percent of respondents indicated that they used periodic case 
reviews, nearly 84 percent use periodic meetings with staff, about 60 
percent used biannual reviews and approximately 50 percent used 
quarterly reviews, to a very great or great extent. About 40 percent of 
respondents said that they use to a very great or great extent existing 
management information systems--such as LIONS, the U.S. Attorney case 
management system--to monitor case progress.

* Approach to monitoring progress--The majority of supervisors who 
responded said that they use a variety of ways to monitor time spent on 
a specific case or matter assigned to the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in 
their unit. For example, about 80 percent said that they used 
individual meetings to cover a specific case or matter; about 70 
percent said they used periodic reviews, as needed; about 41 percent 
used quarterly reviews; and nearly 40 percent used biannual reviews, to 
a very great or great extent.

* Frequency of reviews--Respondents also said that these various 
reviews were either much more than adequate, more than adequate, or 
adequate to review time spent on a case or matter by Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys in their unit. For example, about 93 percent of respondents 
indicated that periodic case/matter reviews, as the need arises, were 
at least adequate to review time spent on a case or matter; 
approximately 83 percent said that quarterly reviews were at least 
adequate; and about 80 percent said that biannual reviews were at least 
adequate for this purpose.

* Importance of monitoring time spent--About 47 percent of respondents 
said that it was either very important or important to review the 
amount of time being spent on a case or matter by Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys in their unit with an additional 37 percent saying that it 
was moderately important.

Performance Evaluation:

The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
responded to various questions about evaluating the performance of the 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys that they supervise.

Usefulness of appraisals--About 53 percent of respondents answered that 
performance appraisals were either very useful or useful in recognizing 
outstanding performance and about 38 percent indicated that performance 
appraisals were either very useful or useful in identifying performance 
that needs improvement for the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their unit.

* Appraisal form and critical job factors--Only 24 percent of 
respondents answered to a very great or great extent when asked whether 
the performance appraisal form provides a true assessment of critical 
job factors while about 27 percent of respondents responded to some, 
little, or no extent when asked this question. About 48 percent 
answered to a moderate extent.

* Performance counseling--When asked the extent to which they believed 
they could provide candid, constructive job performance counseling, 
approximately 65 percent of supervisors who responded indicated to a 
very great or great extent. Adding the response "to a moderate extent" 
brings the total to almost 97 percent.

* Training on performance counseling--Finally, nearly 80 percent of 
responding supervisors answered very great, great, or moderate extent 
when asked whether they had been provided with adequate supervisory 
training to provide effective job performance counseling.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Staffing:

The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
responded to various questions about Assistant U.S. Attorney staffing 
and attrition.

* Extent of attrition--About 68 percent of respondents who had 
supervised a unit for at least 2 years indicated that there has been 
attrition among the Assistant U.S. Attorneys that they have supervised 
over that time period. In addition, about 68 percent of supervisors 
responding said that they were not aware of any practices in place in 
their office or unit to help retain Assistant U.S. Attorneys currently 
employed. Of the 139 supervisors who indicated that retention practices 
were in place, nearly 86 percent said that those practices were either 
very or somewhat effective.

* Staff shortages--Given the unit workload over the last 6 months of 
2002, about 45 percent of respondents said that their unit had about 
the right number of Assistant U.S. Attorneys. However, approximately 53 
percent of respondents said they have either too few or far too few 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys working in their unit.

* When asked the extent to which they anticipated a shortage of 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the next 3 years as a result of increased 
unit workload, about 64 percent of responding supervisors answered to a 
very great, great, or moderate extent. Approximately 35 percent 
answered this way when asked if attrition would cause the shortage and 
about 26 percent answered this way when lack of attorneys with 
specialized skills or expertise was specified as the potential cause.

* Of the respondents who indicated that they anticipated shortages of 
U.S. Attorneys in their unit over the next 3 years, about 38 percent 
said that their units are or are planning to increase hiring as a 
strategy to counter shortages, while about 21 percent indicated that 
specialized training was a strategy that was planned or in place to 
counter the anticipated shortage.

* Experience and expertise--When asked whether they believed that their 
units have the right mix of Assistant U.S. Attorneys in terms of 
experience and expertise for the types of cases handled, about 76 
percent of the supervisors responding answered either very great or 
great extent for experience and approximately 73 percent answered this 
way for expertise.

Administrative Support:

The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
responded to various questions about the workload and skills of the 
administrative staff--paralegals and legal assistant and secretaries--
that supported their units.

Paralegals:

* Workload--In terms of their ability to deal with the current 
workload, over 62 percent of supervisors who responded said that the 
number of paralegal specialist staff is less than or much less than 
adequate, while nearly 38 percent say the number of paralegal 
specialist staff is either adequate, more than adequate, or much more 
than adequate. Only about 5 percent indicated that the number of 
paralegals was in any way more than adequate.

* Skill level--Nearly 83 percent of responding supervisors said the 
skill levels of the paralegal specialist staff currently working with 
their unit are either adequate, more than adequate, or much more than 
adequate.

* Feasibility of assuming other duties--Nearly 60 percent of responding 
supervisors answered either definitely or probably yes when asked 
whether it would be feasible for existing or newly hired paralegal 
specialists to assume some of the legal duties currently performed by 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their unit. About 40 percent of supervisors 
with an opinion indicated that they would definitely not or probably 
not be able to assume these duties.[Footnote 36]

Legal Assistants and Secretaries:

* Workload--When asked whether the number of support staff currently 
working with their unit was adequate in terms of dealing with the 
current workload, nearly 50 percent of responding supervisors answered 
either less than or much less than adequate. Slightly over 50 percent 
of responding supervisors answered either adequate, more than adequate, 
or much more than adequate. Of those who said that they had less than 
adequate support staff available to do the work, approximately 34 
percent responded that this adversely affected casework either to a 
very great or great extent. Adding answers of moderate extent to this 
total raises it to over 83 percent.

* Skill level--Nearly 87 percent of responding supervisors said that 
the support staff currently working with their unit had skill levels 
that were adequate, more than adequate, or much more than adequate. 
Only 13 percent of supervisors responded that the skill level of 
support staff was less than or much less than adequate. Of those 
responding that the skill level of support staff was less than 
adequate, nearly 84 percent said that this adversely affected their 
casework to a very great, great, or moderate extent.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Training:

The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
responded to various questions about training and training 
opportunities provided by DOJ through the National Advocacy Center, an 
institute for legal education training operated by EOUSA.

* Assessment of training needs--About 88 percent of respondents said 
that either they or someone else in their unit assessed the training 
needs of all of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys whom they supervised.

* Training frequency--Approximately 96 percent of respondents who have 
been supervisors for at least 2 years said that they or the Assistant 
U.S. Attorneys whom they supervised had taken courses sponsored by the 
National Advocacy Center within the past 2 years.

* About 79 percent of supervisors reported that, over a 2-year period, 
they had personally taken one to two courses; nearly 13 percent said 
they took three to four courses; and 5 percent said that they did not 
take any courses. (The percentages do not add up to 100 percent because 
some specified another alternative not listed here.)

* Almost all (99 percent) responded that at least one of the Assistant 
U.S. Attorneys who they supervised had taken a course at the National 
Advocacy Center within the past 2 years; about 69 percent of 
respondents said that their staff have also taken courses provided 
through the Justice Television Network programming; and nearly 36 
percent said that staff had taken courses presented by videoconference. 
To a much lesser extent (ranging from about 8 percent to 12 percent), 
courses were presented at their offices by a Center instructor, or 
self-administered as a computer-based course or using printed 
materials.

* Training for New Assistant U.S. Attorneys--Almost 32 percent of 
respondents said that new Assistant U.S. Attorneys should take one to 
two courses during their first 2 years in the unit, 54 percent said 
they should take three to four courses, and about 10 percent said they 
should take more than four courses. (The percentages do not add up to 
100 percent because some specified another alternative not listed 
here.)

* Course content--Approximately 55 percent of respondents said that the 
content of the courses offered over the past 2 years by the Center was 
highly relevant to the work the Assistant U.S. Attorneys performed in 
their unit while nearly 43 percent said that it was generally relevant.

* Information about training opportunities--Supervisors were kept 
informed of training opportunities presented by the Center in a variety 
of ways. Approximately 48 percent of responding supervisors said that 
they received information about training opportunities from a Web site; 
about 62 percent received electronic information from the Center; and 
approximately 44 percent received information through hard copy or 
electronic format from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. 
Additionally, about 85 percent said they received information 
electronically from their U.S. Attorney's Office.

* Reason for not taking National Advocacy Center courses--The 
Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys were also asked about reasons for 
not taking courses offered by the Center. Their responses are as 
follows:

* The ongoing caseload is too heavy to take time for training courses-
-approximately 44 percent of those responding answered to a very great 
or great extent. Adding moderate extent increases the percentage to 
close to 79 percent.

* Reluctant to take time away from casework for training--approximately 
36 percent of those responding answered to a very great or great 
extent. Adding moderate extent increases the percentage to 70 percent.

* Travel time to training location is excessive--approximately 47 
percent of those responding answered to a very great or great extent. 
Adding moderate extent increases the percentage to about 68 percent.

[End of section]

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contact:

John F. Mortin, (202) 512-8777.

Staff Acknowledgments:

Barbara A. Stolz, Richard R. Griswold, Carla D. Brown, Susan S. Mak, 
Daniel R. Garcia, Grace Coleman, Shari Caporale, Stuart M. Kaufman, 
David Alexander, Elsie Picyk, and Maria Romero.

[End of section]

Related GAO Products on Strategic Human Capital Management:

A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management (Exposure Draft), 
GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002).

Human Capital: Implementing Pay for Performance at Selected Personnel 
Demonstration Projects, GAO-04-83 (Washington, D.C.: January 23, 2004).

Human Capital: Insights for U.S. Agencies from Other Countries' 
Succession Planning and Management Initiatives, GAO-03-914 
(Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2003).

Human Capital: Selected Agency Actions to Integrate Human Capital 
Approaches to Attain Mission Results, GAO-03-446 (Washington, D.C.: 
April 11, 2003).

Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 
(Washington, D.C.: December 18, 2003).

Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development 
Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-03-893G (Washington, D.C.: July 
2003).

Human Capital: Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in 
Managing Their Workforces, GAO-03-2 (Washington, D.C.: December 6, 
2002).

Human Capital: Practices that Empowered and Involved Employees, 
GAO-01-1070 (Washington, D.C. September 14, 2001).

Results Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 
Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: 
March 14, 2003).

FOOTNOTES

[1] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: 
Executive Office for U. S. Attorneys Needs to Institutionalize Key IT 
Management Disciplines, GAO-03-751 (Washington, D.C.: July 2003) and 
U.S. Attorneys: Controls Over Grant-Related Activities Should Be 
Enhanced, GAO-03-733 (Washington, D.C.: June 2003).

[2] There are 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices and 93 U.S. Attorneys---the 
same U.S. Attorney serves the District of Guam and the District of the 
Northern Mariana Islands.

[3] According to OMB Circular A-11 dated July 2003, beginning with the 
budget for fiscal year 2005, agencies are to prepare a performance 
budget in lieu of the annual performance plan for their budget 
submission to OMB and Congress. The Circular stated that the 
performance budget should satisfy all statutory requirements for the 
annual performance plan. 

[4] EOUSA defines an extra-large office as having 100 or more 
attorneys; a large office as having 44 to 99 attorneys; a medium office 
as having 25 to 43 attorneys; and a small office as having less than 25 
attorneys.

[5] See U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk: An Update, 
GAO-01-262 (Washington, D.C.: January 2001); High-Risk Series: 
Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.: 
January 2003); and Human Capital: A Self Assessment Checklist for 
Agency Leaders, GAO/OCG-00-14G (Washington, D.C.: September 2000). 

[6] 1 Stat. 73, 92-93. The Judiciary Act also provided for the 
appointment of the Attorney General to represent the United States in 
litigation before the Supreme Court and to furnish legal advice to the 
President and department heads. 

[7] Redeployment of United States Attorneys' Personnel, (N.D.), A 
Report by the Executive Office for United States Attorneys as Requested 
by Senate Report 105-235 Regarding FY 1999 Appropriations for the 
Department of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related 
Agencies. 

[8] The 40 component organizations are the Office of the Attorney 
General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the 
Associate Attorney General, the Office of the Solicitor General, the 
Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Legal Counsel, the 
Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, 
the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Office of Legislative 
Affairs, the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison, the Office 
of Information and Privacy, the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of 
Dispute Resolution, the Justice Management Division, the Executive 
Office for United States Attorneys, the Antitrust Division, the Civil 
Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division, the 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, the Tax Division, the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the 
FBI, ATF, the U.S. Marshals Service, Interpol - U.S. National Central 
Bureau, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Office of the 
Pardon Attorney, the U.S. Parole Commission, the Executive Office for 
U.S. Trustees, the Community Relations Service, the Foreign Claims 
Settlement Commission of the United States, the Office of Justice 
Programs, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the 
National Drug Intelligence Center, the Professional Responsibility 
Advisory Office, the Office of Federal Detention Trustee, and the 
Office of Violence Against Women. According to a JMD official, DOJ 
treats EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys as one component.

[9] The U.S. Attorneys also litigate cases for investigative agencies 
outside of DOJ, for example, the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection in the Department of Homeland Security.

[10] The 94 U.S. Attorney Offices and their branch locations comprise 
over 240 sites.

[11] Pub. L. No. 103-62.

[12] OMB Circular A-11 was revised during our review; therefore, we 
indicate the date of the Circular for the provisions cited.

[13] The President announced his strategy--called the President's 
Management Agenda (PMA)--for improving the management and performance 
of the federal government. Under PMA, the President identified five 
crosscutting management initiatives that are linked and support each 
other; budget and performance integration, strategic human capital 
management, improved financial performance, expanded electronic 
government, and competitive sourcing. 

[14] OMB is using PART to assess the effectiveness of programs--defined 
as the list of agency programs and activities that appear in Program 
and Financing Schedules of the Budget Appendix. PART supports the 
assessment of four aspects of a program--does the program perform a 
clear federal role; has an agency set valid long-term and annual goals 
for the program; is the program well-managed; and is the program 
achieving the results set forth in the agency's GPRA plans? 

[15] See U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk: An Update, 
GAO-01-263 (Washington, D.C.: January 2001).

[16] See U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: Strategic 
Human Capital Management, GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003). 

[17] At the time of our review, DOJ's new strategic plan had not been 
released.

[18] Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to 
prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of 
FTE employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing 
the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of 
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number 
of compensable days in the fiscal year.

[19] At the time of our review, DOJ had not published its Strategic 
Plan for Fiscal Year 2003 through 2008 and, as a result, we did not 
have a comprehensive list of DOJ's strategic goals and objectives 
applicable to other DOJ components. 

[20] In the fiscal year 2004, U.S. Attorney Congressional Budget 
Submission, DOJ uses the term program activity to cover 5 specific 
areas--antiterrorism, violent and trafficking crimes, white-collar 
crime, civil litigation, and training. According to a JMD official, a 
program activity is the thematic area reflecting the basic types of 
work performed by U.S. Attorneys. However, OMB Circular A--11 states 
that program activity is defined as the list of programs and activities 
appearing in the Program and Financing schedules of the Budget 
Appendix. In the DOJ Budget Appendix for Fiscal Year 2004, U.S. 
Attorneys program activities are defined as Direct Program: U.S. 
Attorneys, and Reimbursable Programs. 

[21] According to EOUSA officials, DOJ uses the term "defendants 
terminated" in its fiscal year 2005 budget submission to mean the total 
number of defendants for which some type of closure was reachedóthey 
were guilty, acquitted, or the proceedings involving particular 
defendants were dismissed, or otherwise terminated. They said that 
their terminology has always been ìdefendants terminatedî and that 
terminology is consistent with that used by the Administrative Office 
of the United States Courts. 

[22] According to DOJ officials, the rate of conviction or conviction 
rate is those defendants who pleaded guilty or were found guilty via 
trial as a percentage of all defendants terminated.

[23] According to EOUSA officials, the Western District of Washington's 
strategic planning effort was initially funded by EOUSA in July 2002 in 
response to the district's one-time request to hire a management 
consultant. 

[24] The evaluation program, which was initiated in 1969, was designed 
to evaluate each district's compliance with federal regulations and 
provide information to DOJ on performance, management, and various 
priorities and objectives. Among other things, the evaluations assessed 
compliance with DOJ priorities, policies, and programs; reviewed 
staffing and workload; and determined whether U.S. Attorneys Offices 
were meeting the internal control requirements of the Federal Managers 
Financial Integrity Act. In 1984, EOUSA established the Evaluation and 
Review Staff (EARS) as a component to coordinate the evaluation 
program. EARS evaluations are coordinated by its staff in Washington, 
D.C., and conducted in each of the 94 districts approximately every 3 
years by teams of Assistant U.S. Attorneys and staff from around the 
country.

[25] 31 U.S.C. 3512.

[26] In his September 24, 2003, letter, EOUSA's Director said that many 
districts do not formalize strategic and performance plans (and are not 
required to); thus it was difficult to provide specific examples of 
district-level performance goals and measures. The Director further 
stated that, in some cases, respondents could have misconstrued the 
survey question regarding district level performance goals and measures 
to include "performance workplan" goals, which are goals established 
between a supervisor and employee as part of an individual's annual 
performance assessment.

[27] The Attorney General issued a directive that included a provision 
directing each U.S. Attorneys Office to establish an ATTF to serve as a 
standing organizational structure for a coordinated state and federal 
response to terrorism within each U.S. Attorney's District. The ATTF 
has a three fold objective: prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist 
operations before they occur; develop and implement the full range of 
resources available to investigate terrorist incidents, bringing their 
perpetrators to justice; and vigorously prosecute those who have 
committed, or intend to commit, terrorist acts in the United States. In 
a September 2003 memorandum, the Attorney General changed the name of 
these task forces to Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council (ATAC), leaving 
its current membership intact.

[28] The JTTF program was established by DOJ to bring teams of state 
and local law enforcement officers, Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI) agents, and other federal agents and personnel together to 
investigate and prevent acts of terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, 
the FBI had expanded its JTTF initiative from 35 JTTFs to 84 JTTFs 
nationwide.

[29] According to DOJ, individuals in the legal field made up the 
second largest category of personnel in DOJ. The largest category was 
law enforcement personnel--when the plan was prepared, DOJ reported 
that it had over 20,000 criminal investigators; nearly 15,000 
correctional officers; and nearly 10,000 agents and 10,000 inspectors 
in the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Individuals in 
more than 150 job classifications administrative, technical, and 
clerical functions made up the third largest category of other/
administrative occupations in DOJ. These included individuals in budget 
and finance, human resources, security, information technology, and 
miscellaneous clerical and technical positions. In March 2003, INS was 
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau of 
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms was transferred from the Department of the 
Treasury to DOJ.

[30] In May 2004, DOJ officials said that DOJ had more than 8,000 
attorneys.

[31] U.S. Department of Justice Human Capital Strategic Plan, September 
2002 and DOJ's Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report & Fiscal Year 2003 
Revised Final Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan.

[32] Title 5 laws (or requirements) refer to those personnel management 
laws, procedures, and associated functions generally applicable to 
federal employees. Most federal personnel laws governing topics such as 
classification, appointment, pay and benefits, and adverse action are 
contained in Title 5. Title 5 also contains laws unrelated to federal 
personnel issues, such as the Administrative Procedures Act and the 
Freedom of Information Act, that are also applicable to federal 
agencies. 

[33] According to U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Workforce: 
Payroll and Human Capital Changes During Downsizing, GAO/GGD-99-57 
(Washington, D.C.: August 1999), a buyout refers to paid separation 
incentives used by federal agencies since 1993 to induce employees to 
voluntarily leave federal service. 

[34] In this report, information on U.S. Attorneys' information 
technology needs is limited to LIONS and ALCATRAZ systems in terms of 
case progress and attorney performance. For a more complete discussion 
of this topic, please refer to U.S. General Accounting Office, 
Information Technology: Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys Needs to 
Institutionalize Key IT Management Disciplines, GAO-03-751 
(Washington, D.C.: July 2003). 

[35] For purposes of this report, we refer to national level 
performance goals and measures as those by which federal agencies are 
to measure performance under the Government Performance and Results Act 
of 1993 (P.L. 103-62). We asked supervisors to identify whether DOJ 
communicated its strategic goals and objectives and if, at the district 
level, long-range goals and objectives were articulated to U.S. 
Attorneys Offices' staff. 

[36] Supervisors indicated that paralegal tasks encompass assisting at 
trial; assisting with the client, agency, witness, or victim; providing 
automation systems and computerized support; filing papers with the 
court; drafting correspondence, pleadings; analyzing documents; 
providing document summaries; and doing general factual and legal 
research. To a lesser extent, paralegals may do deposition summaries, 
prepare for or attend depositions, conduct investigations, and maintain 
the law library.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: